The Conquest of War 


NORMAN M. THOMAS 
W. FEARON HALLIDAY 
F. W. ARMSTRONG 
RICHARD ROBERTS 











«• 


• • 

• • • 
• • 


-v«' 


•. y.) 


m 


. * • .... 




1 


. ..A ■ *• 

U * -t <*. 


The Conquest of War 

Some Studies in the Search for a Christian 
World Order 


By 

NORMAN M. THOMAS 
W. FEARON HALLIDAY 
F. W. ARMSTRONG 
RICHARD ROBERTS 


FELLOWSHIP PRESS 

125 East 27TH Street, New York 
1917 


y\' \ c fC3 

•C73 

FELLOWSHIP PUBLICATIONS 

After nineteen hundred years of Christian profession all 
Christendom today stands reproached by the tragic evidences of 
its failure to establish Christian practice. The war is not simply 
proclaiming the violation of Christian principles between nations. 
It is laying bare the heart of twentieth century civilization and is 
disclosing widespread disregard of Christian standards in sordid 
commercialism, industrial strife, and social injustice. In the events 
of the present time there are compelling reasons why the Christian 
conscience should be quickened to penitence and roused to discover 
what deep-seated misconception of the personality and principles 
of Christ or what fatal facility for compromise has been respon¬ 
sible for the failure to make His will effective in the social order. 

The Fellowship of Reconciliation unites a group of those who 
are seeking for a better way of life. It is founded in the faith that 
love as revealed in the life, teachings, and death of Jesus Christ is 
not only the fundamental basis of a true human society, but the 
effective power for overcoming evil, and that loyalty to humanity 
and to Christ calls His followers to new endeavors to practice love 
unswervingly at whatever cost, and to make it supreme in personal, 
social, industrial, national, and international life. 

Fellowship publications are issued in the hope that they may 
stimulate thought and action with regard to practical applications 
of these principles. They are not to be understood, however, as 
necessarily expressing the views of all, the members of the Fellow¬ 
ship. While it is hoped to preserve'throughout the series the same 
general approach, the individual ahtbors are alone responsible for 
the statements contained in their respective papers. 



Copyright, 1917, by Edward W. Evans 

©CLA456901 

MAR -6 1917 

0 | . 


CONTENTS 


Chapter Pa<sb 

What Does War Mean for the Individual?. v 

An Introduction by Norman M. Thomas 

I. Personality and War ... i 

W. Fearon Halliday 

II. The Christian Case Against War... 14 

F. W. Armstrong 

III. Can a Christian Internationalism be Established?. 30 

Richard Roberts 

IV. Some Objections Considered. 42 

Norman M. Thomas 

Conclusion : What Practical Service Can We 

Render?. 53 

Bibliography. 57 

















f 









* 


















WHAT DOES WAR MEAN FOR THE 
INDIVIDUAL? 


AN INTRODUCTION 

Norman M. Thomas 

None of us in days like these can escape the challenge of war. 
Everyone feels the thrill of the heroism which men of the warring 
nations are displaying. Humanity is not destitute of courage or 
of the capacity to sacrifice for a cause in which men believe. Yet 
these facts ought not to make the thoughtful man, still less the 
Christian, an apologist for war without further inquiry. Is war 
a method of attaining righteousness which is in accord with the 
mind of Christ? Is the present war serving liberty or destroying 
it in the very nations which have professed to be free? What is 
the relation of war to personality, which Christian thought accepts 
as of absolute value and the source of all absolute worth in the 
world? However necessary war may sometimes appear, no true 
moral judgment upon it can be formed without first appraising 
such aspects of it as are suggested by the following paragraphs. 
The points which they raise are designed not to prove a case against 
war in the space of a few paragraphs, but to indicate some of the 
things which war and the militaristic system require of the indi¬ 
vidual and to provoke constructive thinking which takes account 
of all the facts. 

i. The highest law of the army is obedience to one’s superior 
officer. The minute that I enlist I surrender my right to act accord¬ 
ing to my own conscience. Mrs. Skeffington, in her tragic tale of 
the fate of her husband, tells how her own house was looted and 
soldiers were set to guard her and her seven-year-old son with the 
command to shoot them if they should move. One of the men 
looked at her uneasily and finally said: “I didn’t exactly enlist for 

v 


vi WHAT DOES WAR MEAN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL? 


this.” But he did enlist to obey without question, regardless of his 
own conscience, whatever might be required by his commander. 

2. In war the supreme object of defeating the enemy substi¬ 
tutes military law for moral law. In the official British “Manual 
of Military Law” (1914), page 256, under the heading, “The Means 
of Carrying on War,” the following paragraphs occur: 

“144. Among legitimate ruses may be counted: surprises, 
ambushes, feigning attacks, retreats, or flights; simulating quiet 
and inactivity; giving large outposts or a strong advanced guard to 
a small force; constructing works, bridges, etc., which it is not 
intended to use; transmitting bogus signal and telegraph messages 
and sending bogus despatches and newspapers with a view to their 
being intercepted by the enemy. , . .” 

“145. It is not illegitimate to employ spies or even to corrupt 
enemy civilians or soldiers by bribes in order to induce them to give 
information, to desert, surrender, to rebel or to mutiny or to give 
false information to the enemy; for a belligerent State can take 
measures to secure itself against such offences.” 

“146. It would be contrary to modern practice to attempt to 
obtain advantage of the enemy by deliberate lying, when there is 
a moral obligation to speak the truth. . . .” 

Similar instructions can be found in the war manuals of other 
nations. 

Even supposing that in war the nation’s end is righteous, can 
it afford to use such unrighteous means as the absolute denial of 
truth and the purchase of treason ? “When war is called holy, con¬ 
tempt of truth becomes an article of holiness.” Under such con¬ 
ditions what moral principles can survive? 

Records of the experiences and impressions of eye-witnesses 
and participants at the front compel consideration not merely of 
the awful waste of human life which war demands, but of its effect 
on the character of those who survive. 

“And last night, at an officers’ mess there was great laughter 
at the story of one of our men who had spent his last cartridge in 
defending an attack. ‘Hand me down your spade, Mike,’ he said; 
and as six Germans came one by one round the end of a traverse, 
he split each man’s skull open with a deadly blow. 


WHAT DOES WAR MEAN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ? vii 


“ ‘Splendid fellow !’ said a military chaplain, laughing very 
heartily. (This priest does not believe in the sentimentalities of 
the war.) 'That man ought to have the Victoria Cross!’ ” . . . . 

“He grinned when I asked him to tell me his biggest bag. T 
picked off twelve in one afternoon,’ he said, ‘But it’s all in the day’s 
work. If I can kill one or two a day, I’m satisfied. It’s just a 
question of waiting for one’s opportunity; and sometimes there’s 
good Sport, and sometimes there ain’t. I can’t help laughing some¬ 
times when I catch one bending, as you might say. Oh, it has its 
funny side, if you look at it from the right point of view/ . . .” 

“The killing of Germans is to them no more than the killing 
of vermin. The more the merrier! And men who have hurled 
grenades into the enemy’s trenches and exploded mines under the 
enemy’s redoubts and laughed to see the mangled bodies fly up 
in a scatter of earth, will laugh just as much at the gambols of a 
kitten on a French door-step (stooping to stroke the little creature), 
and find great merriment in the attempts of a French peasant girl 
to speak the English tongue with an Irish brogue or a Northumber¬ 
land burr.” 1 

“The Insane Root,” by L. P. Jacks, contains the following 
incident: 

“Someone had read, in the hearing of a young officer about to 
return to the front, an article describing the battle of Loos. 

“When the reader had finished, he laid down the magazine and 
said, ‘Shocking, shocking!’ whereupon the officer, very quietly, took 
up the magazine and read the article in his turn. ‘Well, what do 
you think of it ?’ somebody asked. ‘Oh,’ he answered, ‘it’s quite true. 
But it’s not shocking. No, not shocking at all.’ 

“Then silence again fell on the group and the young officer 
resumed his gazing into the distance. Presently he broke out with 
some heat, ‘You said the article was shocking. I tell you no 
description of anything is worth such a word. Fancy being shocked 
by what a man writes! Nothing that anybody can say or write 
about anything will ever shock me again. You should see what 
men do. You should see what they suffer. Oh, how I wish they’d 
all shut up!’ ” 2 

“The justice of the cause which endeavors to achieve its object 
by the murder and maiming of mankind is apt to be doubted by a 
man who has come through a bayonet charge. The dead lying on 


1 Philip Gibbs in the London Daily Telegraph for July 30th, 1916. 

2 The Atlantic Monthly, January, 1917. 



viiiWHAT DOES WAR MEAN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL? 

the fields seem to ask: ‘Why has this been done to us ? Why have 
you done it, my brothers? What purpose has it served? ? The 
battleline is a secret world, a world of curses. The guilty secrecy 
of war is shrouded in lies and shielded by blood-stained swords; to 
know it you must be one of those who wage it, a party to dark and 
mysterious orgies of carnage. War is the purge of repleted king¬ 
doms, needing a close place for its operations.” 3 

Success in war must be success in killing the enemy and one 
cannot afford to be scrupulous about the means. All human history 
has proved that the circumstances of war make it easy for the 
bestial nature of men to gain the ascendency. Immorality and 
violation of the sanctities of the home are appallingly increased 
by war and the conditions of life in military camps. Already 
thoughtful and well informed observers fear this immorality and 
the disease which follows it as among the chief of war’s evils, so 
grave as to menace our western civilization. 

Surely facts like these challenge us to think down into the 
philosophy of the whole matter. The world, including many of its 
nobler sons and daughters, has accepted war as under certain cir¬ 
cumstances inevitable and right. In the light of what is now hap¬ 
pening to humanity, must we not question that acceptance of war, 
and seek to discover whether there is not a more excellent way for 
the attainment of righteousness? 

It is the purpose of the following chapters to stimulate thought 
and discussion by certain fundamental inquiries into the problem 
of war from the Christian point of view. The suggestive study in 
the first chapter of the relation of war to personality goes to the 
root of the matter. The second chapter deals with an interpretation 
of the mind of Christ and the application of His method of redeem¬ 
ing love. In the third chapter, the problem of nationalism in rela¬ 
tion to the ideal of the Kingdom of God is considered, and some 
constructive suggestions as to a better way are offered. Each of 
these chapters is followed by questions to stimulate discussion. The 
final chapter is an honest endeavor to suggest the direction in which 
answers may be found for the sort of questions that thinking men 


3 “ The Great Push” by Patrick MacGill, who writes of his own experiences at the front. 



WHAT DOES WAR MEAN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL? ix 

are asking whenever they are confronted with the relation of war 
to the Christian ideal. Finally, in the conclusion, practical ways 
are suggested in which men may realize their desire to serve the 
cause of peace, and a brief bibliography is given. 

Circumstances have called for a preliminary publication of 
only part of the proposed studies. It is hoped that they will stimu¬ 
late the desire for further study of this supreme problem of our 
time. 








CHAPTER I 


PERSONALITY AND WAR * 1 

There are very few who do not feel some dubiety of conscience 
at the present time, and even those who have no scruple of con¬ 
science are aware of a problem. The finest blood of the nations 
is being poured out; the physique of the West is bound to dete¬ 
riorate; and many whose soul and experience are needed to help in 
the solution of the world’s problems will never return from the strife 
that will determine the outward conditions of life. 

Do we not feel that this immolation of persons is a crime? 
Can it be justified unless we lower the value of personality? It 
seems to us that in regarding principles as possessing infinite value, 
we have forgotten that souls also possess the same. That the first 
is true, and universally acclaimed, is all to the good, but that the 
second is not realized is one of the saddest things that war brings 
to light. It is the purpose of this paper to show that each person 
must have an absolute value in himself; otherwise there is no value 
at all in the world. You can never create value out of a number 
of ciphers by any arrangement of them, however varied. Person¬ 
ality, if it possesses worth, must possess it intrinsically. If the 
single soul has no value humanity has none; and apart from per¬ 
sonality moral principles, such as honor, truth, justice, have not 
only no value, but even no existence save as abstractions of the mind. 
At the same time, it should be remembered that without principles, 
personality has no ultimate meaning. 

I. Personality Gives Value to the World, and it is the 
Source of All Absolute Worth in the World. 

In this paper, the term “personality” stands for a reasoning, 
loving, and free being. It is personality that gives worth to science. 
Science concerns itself with the material order—that is to say, with 

1 The substance of this chapter was written by the Rev. W. Fearon Halliday and appeared in 
its original form as an essay in “Christ and Peace.” 

I 



2 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


the conditions of life, but its quest would not be begun, nor its 
results ever attained, much less have meaning, were it not for per¬ 
sonality. When we are told that an impersonal desire for truth, 
and openness to fact, is the first condition of scientific research, we 
are only being told that personality never can arrive at truth unless 
it is open to the impact of reality. Here we have stress laid upon 
an attitude without which personality itself cannot find its true 
meaning,. which meaning is never found in its mere individuality, 
but in itself as social, as a member of a universal society, having 
what is disinterested and universal in its heart. 2 But that universal 
society has no meaning apart from the meaning of each person; 
the key to the one is the key to the other; and science is infinitely 
lowered if it is merely concerned with the discovery of the condi¬ 
tions for lives which have no ultimate meaning. The truth is, that 
every scientific discovery is a personal attainment and a personal 
realization. 

It is the soul also that gives value to philosophy. To analyze 
knowledge, to investigate the laws of mind, and to discover the 
meaning of the world, is like working at a jig-saw puzzle, the value 
of which disappears with its accomplishment, unless meanings are 
relative to what is living, permanent, and immortal, that is to say, 
personality. We often fail to realize that thought is an activity of 
a person. Its universal character comes because persons are essen¬ 
tially the same; the meaning of each is the meaning of all; without 
others we are not made perfect. 

It is the same with art. The form of an object may evoke 
the sense of beauty, but the sense of beauty is in the mind, not in 
the object, and the object is purposive in order to evoke the soul. 
It is the same in music: 

Music, when soft voices die, 

Vibrates in the memory. 

All works of art are self-expressions; that they touch what is 

2 A person, being a self-conscious rational being, unites, in virtue of self-conciousness and self¬ 
activity, on the one hand, and of reason on the other, what is individual and universal. It is as 
true to say that “personality is a receptivity for the Other” as to say "it involves also a con¬ 
sciousness of self.” 



PERSONALITY AND WAR 


3 


universal and not merely individual is a revelation of the greatness 
and the meaning of personality, which finds itself in that which it 
has in common with others. The end of art is a living disposition 
towards life, without which life’s moral attainment would lack both 
delicacy and warmth. 

It will not be denied that at the heart of religion lies the judg¬ 
ment of the absolute worth of personality; for religion involves the 
reaction of the individual on the Universe as a whole, and while the 
individual, conscious of his utter dependence, seeks for shelter, he 
still expresses, in that search, his own as well as the Divine sense 
of his worth. 

These considerations lead us to assert the absolute value of the 
soul, because that which gives worth to the world must have in itself 
an ultimate value, and that this fact is unconsciously acknowledged 
is seen in the sense of individual and social responsibility, in the con¬ 
ception of justice, and in the very idea of morality. We might have 
custom without the belief that the individual soul has an infinite 
worth, but morality has no meaning without this. The moral law 
has two sides, first that we should act with constant reference to 
the ideal world, and secondly, that we should treat each person as 
an end in himself. All the immoralities can be classified as viola¬ 
tions of this principle, and all the commands of conscience are 
relative to a universal world of persons, each of which has absolute 
worth. 

II. The Glory of War 

In the light of this principle of the absolute worth of personality, 
it is now necessary to analyze the phenomenon of war. We have 
to find out what is the glory of war, for, like everything else in this 
world, it is kept alive, not by its evil, but by its good. We have 
also to find out what is its crime, and then to ask ourselves if there 
is any other solution to the problem which it seeks to solve. 

The glory of war lies in two things, (a) It asserts the absolute 
value of principle, that it is something worth dying for, and that a 
world without it is not worth living in. (b) It also asserts per¬ 
sonality as social, and rightly denies that the individual can live for 


4 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


himself. We have said before that personality without principle 
has no meaning. To live without principle is not to live as a man, 
but to exist as a part of unspiritual Nature. A rational person 
must, in exercising reason, go out from himself to find his own 
meaning in the meaning of the whole. A soul with a capacity of 
loving never finds itself save as denying itself; it lives in other souls 
and for them. The crowning glory of a man is his freedom, but his 
freedom is never attained until he is prepared to surrender the world 
that is seen for the world that is eternal. All selfishness is slavery. 
In asserting the individual as such, it always asserts him as bound 
by earthly comforts and material interests, as being driven by feel¬ 
ing, custom, circumstance—that is to say, as a slave. We find our 
lives by losing them. We prove our worth only when we live for 
others. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it 
abideth alone.” “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it.” 

At the same time we must realize that there is no such thing 
as self-sacrifice as such; it is always a form of self-expression and 
self-realization. It has such a moral glamor about it that it is 
the cause, not only of a great deal of blindness, but of not a little 
hypocrisy. A mother, dying for her child, asserts her motherhood; 
to fail to make that venture would be to fail to assert herself as 
mother. The things that are sacrificed are things and not the self. 
We have to realize that what is called self-sacrifice is not always 
noble. It is possible to identify oneself with malice and to die 
because of it. It is possible to identify oneself with indifference 
to life and to throw one’s life as chaff to the winds. It is possible 
to identify oneself with a worldly power which can mold the out¬ 
ward circumstances of one’s fellows and to die in seeking its attain¬ 
ment. It is common to identify oneself with the lust of gold and 
to lose one’s soul to find it. For all these and many other objects 
we can selfishly sacrifice ourselves. Self-sacrifice is only true when 
it is unselfish, and it cannot be unselfish unless it is spiritual, that 
is, unless we assert our own spiritual value by identifying ourselves 
with that which is truly good for others, and apprehending their 
absolute worth, living and dying for them. All other self-sacrifices 
identify us with material conditions, assert our slavery as men, and 


PERSONALITY AND WAR 


5 


deny our worth as spiritual and rational persons. Such self-decep¬ 
tion goes very far. There is hardly a human being who would not 
like to be a hero. To venture everything to be called a hero is to 
be unheroic, for it is a selfish self-assertion, having at its heart the 
desire for praise. Many are willing either to be on the crest of the 
wave of popular applause, or in the pillory of popular contempt. 
But the real hero is one who, unconscious of self, accepts his life 
from God, and in humble courage sees that which is invisible and 
lives for it. 

All true heroism moves us. Think of that ancient Briton, 
Caractacus, a savage perhaps, but a hero, bearing himself proudly, 
though in chains, before the Roman Emperor, refusing to buy the 
existence of a slave at the expense of his manhood. He had 
identified himself with something larger than his own earthly 
existence—his tribe and his higher self. 

I wonder what the world would be without Thermopylae ? That 
little Spartan handful waited in the pass for the unnumbered host 
of Persia. All hope was gone; their country was lost to them, but 
not their freedom. In sublimity, and all unconsciously, they asserted 
their spiritual nature and destiny, as in the victory of the spirit they 
rose from their ashes. Persia smote the body, but there was some¬ 
thing that she could not touch. When shall we realize that freedom 
is not the power to use outward conditions, but to make a spiritual 
assertion, to be oneself over against the world? When shall we 
realize that this freedom can be destroyed by no invasion, by no 
altering of state boundaries or change of governments? Those 
Spartans thought they were dying for their country. Had they 
understood the full meaning of their heroism they would have seen 
that they were vindicating the spiritual value of humanity. And 
so it is at the present time. We yield to none in homage to the 
brave; we bare our heads as we see men going, giving up home and 
wife and children, with no desire to slay, but only to preserve the 
good they see, shelter the weak, and leaven earth’s laws with honor. 
But it were to fail to read the meaning of their actions if we did not 
see the vision which they reveal, and in that vision see a better way 
for humanity. We hold no brief for the slaves that cry “Peace!” 


6 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 

for reasons of comfort. The only motive that will ever justify the 
actions of spiritual men must have in it the eternal word which lies 
behind the sentence: “Fear not them which kill the body, but are 
not able to kill the soul.” 

We cannot, however, rest here, for while we were made for 
freedom, we were also made to evoke it in others. While we were 
meant to be superior to the world we were meant to find the way 
in which it can be ordered by freedom, and for the free. There 
is no way, except that, which will bring men to spiritual manhood 
and the fellowship of the spirit. We may organize and legislate 
as we like, but we shall never solve the problem by mere outward 
construction; we must find the spirit that can create the body. 

We contend therefore that war, while having much in it that 
is true and grand, is no solution, and not only so, but that it veils 
those elements which would lead to a solution. This leads us to 
consider: 

III. The Crime of War 

Its defect is that it is one-sided. It may, through some of the 
units that take part, express a sacrifice that is spiritual, but it does 
not evoke what is spiritual in those who are in opposition, for if 
it did there would be peace. The soul has an absolute value; but 
its true expression and its true activity are found only in evoking 
others to their true life. We are not acting reasonably unless we 
are so acting as to convince others of what is reasonable. We are 
not acting in love unless our action is calculated to awaken love. 
Our freedom is a menace to freedom unless we are calling out the 
freedom of others. There is only one thing worthy of spiritual 
beings, and that is to construct, to redeem, to awaken in men’s 
hearts the sense of their spiritual heritage. This, because it is an 
individual matter, cannot be achieved by war; life is created by life, 
personality by personality. The spiritual can be conveyed only 
through a love that finds individual expression, through a charity 
that is superior to individual malice and resentment. We never 
truly overcome our enemy until we slay the enmity. We cannot 
slay enmity with enmity, nor reduce our enemy to love by force. 


PERSONALITY AND WAR 


7 


Mass methods are hopeless for this task of redeeming souls, and 
therefore for redeeming society. 

Most of us do not deny the necessity for a civic police system. 
Such a system may conceivably be redemptive of the criminal while 
it aims at protecting the weak. The true method of treating crime 
has yet to be discovered, but the point is that it may be individual 
and therefore redemptive, and to use it as a justification for war 
is deplorable logic, for it is to argue from the individual to the 
universal. 

On the face of it, war is an attempt to take life while trying to 
guard one’s own. The motives that lie behind it are always various, 
and most of the variety are bad because selfish. The good motive 
and the evil find the same method of expression, and the bias of 
enmity invariably makes men fasten on the worse and not the better 
reason. There is no intrinsic quality in a bullet to tell its recipient 
whether it was fired by a patriot or a pirate. The press of Europe 
is an ample illustration of this statement. Warring Christians are 
always labeled as hypocrites by the opposing nation. It is impos¬ 
sible in a social order such as the present, with its complex interests, 
as well as through the present diplomacy, with its dark ramifica¬ 
tions, for peoples to have a perfectly informed idea either of their 
own case or of that of the enemy, and the consequence is that each 
reads into the other motives that are base, and to this the ordinary 
passions of humanity lend themselves all too willingly. 

But in addition to this, the method of war is wrong. There is 
no common denominator between force and reason; force can never 
prove a right or morally justify a wrong. The rights and wrongs 
of any dispute remain unaltered, from the nature of the case. The 
toll of blood and life is superfluous to the verdict. If right could be 
proved by force the tiger would often be better than a man, and 
therefore more moral. Yet it is with such a clumsy vindication 
that the nations identify God. But not only is the method of war 
wrong, seeing that you can never convince, though you may cow, by 
force—but its aftermath is terrible. We do not deny that in certain 
cases there is left mutual respect through the knowledge of bravery, 
but unless it is a bravery touched with unselfishness you have no 


8 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


healing residuum, and the broad fact remains that nothing is more 
terrible, from the point of view of personality, than the effects of 
impotence in the conquered who believe that they are right. It is 
only equaled in spiritual destructiveness by the pride of those who 
have been the victors, and this pride has always been an irresistible 
temptation among those who sought to vindicate what was right 
by force of arms. 

We pass over the effects in those quiet centers where the future 
is being formed, in the unnumbered homes widowed and stricken. 
It is difficult to be convinced that the slayer of a father or of a son 
did it in love, or to see the spiritual side of an opposing country’s 
command that led to it. The stricken homes in France in 1870 
fostered the spirit of revenge for 1914; and the easy German con¬ 
quest of that earlier time has largely helped to bring to rotten 
ripeness the militarist fruit of this hour. 

There is usually behind war a false idea of nationality and 
empire; nations are regarded as independent entities and as ends 
in themselves; moral considerations, we are told, obtain only within 
a sphere of a nation; national power and worldly self-interest are 
sufficient motives to justify the clash of nations. But just as the 
family exists to train us in the charities, and therefore to be a win¬ 
dow to humanity, so does the nation, if it is to have any ethical 
vindication. Humanity is both greater and wider than any single 
nation. No national assertion is justified unless it is consistent with 
the good of all, and national freedom is but license unless it makes 
for the freedom of all. 

IV. Where is the Solution to be Found? 

We have seen that the glory of war is a personal spiritual 
expression; we have seen that the sin of war consists in an inherent 
denial of individual personal worth, and that therefore from a 
moral and spiritual point of view war is condemned. But any 
solution to the problem which is thus raised must have in it that 
nobility and that spiritual worth which war reveals. Just as war 
is a higher spiritual expression than a peace which is sought for 
reasons of comfort, so must any solution, if it is to be adequate, 


PERSONALITY AND WAR 


9 


reveal a spiritual progress and maintain and not deny a selfless 
heroism. But the solution also must be one worthy of reasonable, 
loving, and free souls, such as will conserve the worth of each as 
well as the worth of all. Can such a solution be found? The 
answer is, in the Cross of Christ. But it must be clearly understood 
that the Cross is but the expression of Jesus Christ. It is the 
supreme revelation of what He was and is. It is therefore not sepa¬ 
rable from His life, for in both His life and death what Jesus was and 
stood for finds expression, and in that expression we have the revela¬ 
tion of God. We affirm that when its meaning is understood we have 
in the Cross the principle for the solution of the world-problem, for 
that problem will be solved when souls are recreated in reconcilia¬ 
tion to God and to one another. The world is at any time what the 
persons in it make it. Civilization is a personal norm, expressing 
in its attainments and in its defects the average good and evil of 
human hearts and lives. Without this personal life, the world would 
be as useless as the worn-out moon. It is almost impossible to use 
the term “The Cross ,, to convey a definite meaning. That for which 
it self-evidently stands has been almost submerged by theologies 
which expressed the conventional standpoint of their respective 
times, far more clearly than its simple and eternal message, and 
there is no lack today of those legal and non-moral interpretations 
which are a fitting justification for an unethical respect of persons, 
and for the crude view of substitutionary sacrifice which war 
sanctions. In saying this, however, we are not denying the reality 
and value of vicarious suffering. 

The Cross has in it the solution, for among other things it 
contains two assertions: 

1. The absolute value and right of personality, and 

2. The absolute value and right of other persons. 

i. The Absolute Value and Right of Personality 

The Man Christ Jesus, rising above all the slaveries of life, 
asserted the absolute value and right of His own soul on the Cross. 
The mass-voices of His day left Him untouched. His only authority 
was a spiritual and personal conviction which Pie realized through 


10 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 

fellowship with the Father and through love for His fellows. This 
breathes through all He said and did. His message was a self- 
expression, and it had as its aim to bring others into the fellowship 
of the same humanity. We shall never apprehend His divinity and 
His uniqueness save as we realize the authority of that ideal human¬ 
ity, which authority comes to us as we see that in His manhood there 
is the meaning of our human life, and that to enter into that rela¬ 
tionship to God and man which He reveals is our salvation. We 
have no right to name the name of Christ while denying this demand. 
To regard as an interim ethic the moral-teaching which this man¬ 
hood involved and expressed, and to declare that the moral attitude 
of the man Christ Jesus is different from that of the risen Saviour, 
is not only to empty of meaning commands like “Follow me,” “Take 
my yoke upon you,” “Learn of me,” but to postulate a Christ with 
contradictory moral standards. He was exalted because He was 
righteous, and remains righteous; He was crowned because He was 
humble and remains humble; He was raised because God vindicated 
that humanity, and in that vindication demanded that we recast the 
values of life, finding in humility our grandeur, in truth our free¬ 
dom, and in love our might. In the Cross Jesus stood between a 
world-order that denied the Father, and the spiritual Kingdom of 
souls which affirmed Him, and dying asserted His right over against 
the world, to identify Himself with the Kingdom of God, and only 
thus could He die for the world. That He calls us individually 
into the same fellowship, and for the sake of the world’s redemp¬ 
tion, is the reason why He makes the oft-repeated personal chal¬ 
lenge in the Synoptics, “If any man will come after me, let him 
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” 

2. The Absolute Value and Right of Other Persons 

He died for all, with a non-resistant yet positive love, affirming 
His spirit, and in that affirmation carrying love’s assault to other 
men in a way that was otherwise impossible. He could not cause 
men to enter into their heritage by destroying them; He could not 
convince them of what was true by bodily assault; He could not 
show them that personality was infinitely more valuable than the 


PERSONALITY AND WAR 


ii 


things of earthly comfort and necessity except by proving its free¬ 
dom in death. He could not show us that selfishness, malice, and 
resentment mean real defeat for spiritual beings except by the 
opposition of a non-resentful dying love. “Father, forgive them, for 
they know not what they do.” He was victorious because He did 
not succumb to these ordinary human passions; His enemies smote 
His body, but His soul was unconquered, for He still sought them. 
He showed the real depth and greatness of human life, for, loving 
each, He loved all, and thus identified Himself with humanity. That 
is why He is the Saviour of the world. Unveiling the sin and love¬ 
lessness of the human heart, He revealed the righteousness and 
mercy of God, condemning sin that He might redeem the man. 

His victory was certain, for men have no armor against this 
appeal. Its meaning and motive is clear, and is not susceptible of 
other explanations. His enemies could only say, “He saved others, 
himself he cannot save.” We have no effective weapon, in earth 
or heaven, against one who loves us regardless of what we are, and, 
refusing to resist the assault of the body, calls us to enter into our 
own heritage. When in sin we accomplish the murder of such a 
man, there can be only one of two results, either brutalization, the 
drawing of the curtain over our vision, the hardening of the heart 
against love, and the loss of our freedom through selfish passion, 
and this is death; or, on the other hand, the awakening to life 
through remorse, the entering into our heritage through penitence. 
There can be no new vision for us that has not in it the dead face, 
and we can have no garden of love without our sin against love 
being like a snake in the grass. That is why the gate of the City 
of God has over it the word “Forgiveness.” 

The Church has no meaning unless it be that of the fellowship 
of the Cross. We do not see masses, we see men. “Mankind is all 
mass to the human eye, all individual to the Divine,” writes Canon 
Mozley, and in the very writing destroys his argument for war. We 
perfectly know God only as expressed in the humanity of Jesus, and 
Jesus calls on us to look on men in the Divine way. And so it is 
that the Cross is our only might, for through it alone as the principle 
of our action can we truly express ourselves, and quicken the 


12 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 

souls of others. We also have to be divinely oblivious to enmity, 
and to refuse to treat any man as an enemy. In so doing 
we know ourselves as immortal, God, who is Love, as our Father, 
Jesus Christ as our Friend and Saviour, and each and all as breth¬ 
ren. Our patriotism is none the less real because, asserting for our 
own that which is the highest, we also assert it for humanity. 

No other solution is possible, for the meaning of the world is 
found only in the love and fellowship of God, and the world can 
never be truly possessed until its meaning is understood. The 
possessions of the world are dead dross until they become to us 
the symbols of the love of God and the conditions for the expres¬ 
sion of love and service to man. 

This may be ideal, and men will cry against it, because it offers 
no immediate solution, but if it did it would not be true. That it 
is ideal is its real recommendation, and involves the fact that it is 
a present spiritual imperative which should govern the action both 
of the Church and of the individual Christian. The task before the 
Church is infinitely great; it is to settle outward conditions through 
the re-creation of individual souls. It is to affirm that the only 
unity is not an outward one of legal ordering, but primarily one of 
spiritual love and freedom. When that comes, the outward will 
take on a different expression. 

For this the Church of Christ exists in the world, and in the 
measure that she fails to understand it she fails to find her own 
meaning. She affirms herself when she denies expediency—the 
principle of man—for principle, which is the expediency of God. 
The Church can find her true expression only in the measure that 
each of her members, in the face of personal, social, and political 
evil, acts as a member of an ideal community, and acts towards 
every man in a manner consistent with his redemption. If this is 
called folly, we simply reply that the Cross has been both a folly 
and a stumbling-block to Greek and Jew, but it still remains the 
power of God and the wisdom of God. We are to follow Him 
who heard the imperative of the Cross above the cry of the crowd, 
and died with a sublime faith both in God and man. 


PERSONALITY AND WAR 


13 


Suggestions for Thought and Discussion 

I. In what ways does personality give worth to principles ? 
Make a list of the things Jesus said or did which would seem 

to justify the high estimate of this paper for personality. 

II. What are the good things that war seems to bring into the 
life of a man or a nation? Is war necessary to secure these values? 
Is it fair to make this analogous with the Chinese method of secur¬ 
ing roast pig as described by Charles Lamb (Cf. “The More Excel¬ 
lent Way,” by Professor Jones) ? 

III. In what ways does war show contempt for personality? 

(a) For those who are fought against? 

(b) For those who fight? 

(c) For those who refuse to fight? 

IV. To what extent were Christ’s life and death a revelation 
of God’s method of dealing with persons and an example which we 
should follow in all personal relationships? 

If we find in the death of Christ a supreme revelation of what 
He was and is and of His way of overcoming evil, what does this 
involve for His followers in their conflict with evil? 

As a matter of history or of personal experience how does His 
way compare with any other in its power to change the evil will? 
What is the explanation of its influence, and the result in character? 


CHAPTER II 


THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 

F. W. Armstrong 

From the point of view of life, Christianity may be defined as 
unity with Jesus Christ in spirit, aim, and method. This unity is 
not exceptional or accidental. It is not an attainment possible only 
for a few heroic souls. It is involved in the spiritual change that 
makes us Christians; for that change is the creation in us by Christ 
of a new nature, namely, His own. When we study His life, and the 
apostolic testimony to the nature of His ministry, we find that war 
was wholly foreign to His Spirit, irreconcilable with the ends He 
had in view, and opposed to the methods He adopted for their ful¬ 
filment. 


I. The Old Testament and War 

It is necessary, first, to consider the bearing of the Old Testa¬ 
ment on the question, and that for two reasons. First, because the 
religious advocates of war adopt the language, and, unconsciously, 
the position of the Old Testament writers in regard to war; and 
secondly, because Jesus claimed to be the goal of Israel’s legal dis¬ 
cipline, and the fulfilment of her prophetic hopes and aspirations. 

Speaking generally, we have in the Old Testament no clearly 
formulated scruples as to the rightness of war. From the historical 
books we see that war is a religious act; God is the God of the armies 
of Israel, and victory in battle is the sign of His favor. Dire 
cruelties are inflicted on the vanquished, ostensibly under the Divine 
sanction and for the Divine glory. This last fact has been a grave 
stumbling block to many simple and sincere souls, so obviously is 
it at variance with the New Testament conception of God as the 
Heavenly Father, who is kind to the unthankful and the evil. It is 
even made the ground for an attack on Christianity itself by popular 

14 


The CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


15 


rationalism, on the assumption that both books are regarded by the 
Church as equally authoritative. 

The difficulty is removed by recognizing the clearly gradual char¬ 
acter of the Divine revelation in the Old Testament. It was given 
to men as they were able to receive it, and given to them in the dis¬ 
cipline of life. They could assimilate only so much of it as they 
were prepared to live by. To treat the Old Testament, then, as regu¬ 
lative for conduct on equal terms with the New, would be not merely 
to ignore the fact of its ethical development; it would involve the 
acceptance of religious persecution also and even of polygamy as 
permissible for the Christian. Further, our Lord’s own attitude to 
the Old Testament implies its disciplinary and preparatory character. 
He drew much of His material from the law and the prophets, but 
He handled both with the freedom of one who stood above them, 
and who saw the end they strove to attain. 

As spiritual men in the Old Testament walked humbly with 
God, and submitted patiently to life’s demands, they came to a 
fuller knowledge of God’s character, and therein to a higher ethical 
point of view. In Ruth and Jonah we find a protest against the con¬ 
ception of God as purely national in His sympathies. Amos de¬ 
nounces cruelties in warfare and the breaking of treaties. Not that 
the stage was ever reached in which it was seen that war is itself 
the essential barbarity, but there were prophetic statements, which 
came not far short of it. These we find in the passages which are 
concerned with the Messianic hope. The classical example is Isaiah 
2: 2-4: “And it shall come to pass in the latter days that the moun¬ 
tain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the moun¬ 
tains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow 
unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us 
go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of 
Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his 
paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of God 
from Jerusalem. And he shall judge between the nations, and shall 
reprove many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plough¬ 
shares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up 
the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” 


i6 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


This passage is repeated in Micah 4: 1-4, and the underlying idea, 
that war and violence are to be no part of the Messianic order, is 
expressed in Isaiah 9: 5, Hosea 2: 18, Zech. 9: 10. 

It is true that the Old Testament conception of the nature of 
the Messianic Kingdom is not fixed and consistent, nor wholly 
spiritual. It carries with it generally the notion of Israel’s sov¬ 
ereignty, a beneficent sovereignty, over the nations, but the vital 
point is the thought that her supremacy is not to be achieved by her 
own might. It is to be introduced by the hand of God, and it is to 
rest on her spiritual superiority in the possession of the true religion. 

The highest reach of Old Testament prophecy, its Pisgah view, 
is given us in Isaiah 53, where it is taught that the Divine blessing 
is to come to Israel and to the nations through the voluntary sacri¬ 
fice and patient vicarious sufferings of the Servant of the Lord. 
Whether by that term we are to understand an ideal individual or 
an ideal community is indifferent to the spiritual principle there de¬ 
fined. The significant fact is that we have moved a long way beyond 
the primitive Old Testament ideas of the ways by which God works 
out His purposes. The battle is the Lord’s and the victory is the 
Lord’s, along lines wholly different from those cherished by an 
earlier age. This chapter is the real point of connection between 
the Old Testament and the New; it is the fitting prelude to the 
Gospels; and the apostles and the primitive Church rightly fastened 
on it as Christological, for they felt it was a marvelous anticipation 
of the spirit and aims and methods of the Master. This brings us 
to the consideration of the New Testament. 

II. The Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of War 

The case for pacifism does not rest on isolated sayings here and 
there in the Gospels. It is the natural outcome of Christ’s Spirit; 
it is presupposed in the very nature of the Kingdom He came to 
establish. His Spirit is the spirit of love in its Divine fulness and 
purity. It is the nature of love to identify itself with its object, 
and in virtue of His love for men, Jesus bore their griefs and car¬ 
ried their sorrows, and felt their sin and misery as a burden on His 
own soul. We find in the record of His ministry no violation of 


THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


17 


this principle. He denounced certain types and tendencies, as in 
His “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,” 1 but it was the sin He 
hated and not the sinner. He looked once with anger on the by¬ 
standers, 2 but it was with grief at the hardness of their hearts. A 
typical instance of His way of dealing with the sinner is given in 
Luke 7: 36-50, in the scene in the house of Simon the Pharisee. 
There His love and sorrow wrought the change in the poor outcast 
of the streets that the world’s scorn and condemnation had not been 
able to effect. Her heart was smitten into penitence, for she read 
her sin in His eyes, and condemned herself. The forgiveness of 
Christ was no verbal absolution. It came from the depths of a pure 
and loving nature that yearned over the wrongdoer, and felt the 
shame and pain of her sin as only purity and love in their fulness 
could feel it. Thus it was that in a world estranged from God, the 
Servant of the Lord was wounded for our transgressions and bruised 
for our iniquities. The Cross on Calvary was the true index of 
His Spirit, as it was its full and final expression. 

Here we see the difference between the sacrifice of Christ and 
the sacrifice of the soldier, a difference so often ignored. One does 
not deny or decry the courage of the soldier, and the hardships and 
perils he undergoes, but the fact remains that he goes into battle to 
kill and not to be killed. If he falls it is only because he has failed 
to slay his antagonist. If he is captured it is only because he has 
been overpowered by superior force. But the sacrifice of Jesus 
was voluntary and deliberate. He offered no resistance. He was 
led as a lamb to the slaughter, and His concern was not for Him¬ 
self, but for those who did the wrong; for He prayed in His agony, 
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” To ignore 
the difference is not only to be disloyal to Christ, but to do grave 
wrong to men; for it is only the truth that can honor human worth, 
or serve human interests. 

Again, the Kingdom Christ came to establish was a Kingdom 
of those who should serve God in the liberty of sons, and not with 
the grudging service of the hireling or the forced service of the 
slave. It was a Kingdom of the free. The entry to it, therefore, 


1 Matt. 23. 


2 Mark 3: 5. 



i8 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


could only be through the spontaneous response and surrender of 
the individual. In this light we see the significance of the story of 
the Temptation in the Wilderness. It was the deliberate rejection 
of all wordly methods of achieving dominion over men; it was 
the refusal to do evil that good might come. He would not bribe 
men to enter the Kingdom, or force them into it by conquest; for 
that would have been to alter its essential character as a Kingdom 
of the free. He would not try to influence them in His favor by 
a display calculated to dazzle their senses, for that would not have 
been a moral or spiritual appeal. If their allegiance was to be won 
for a God of love and truth and righteousness, it could only be 
accomplished by a living manifestation of these qualities in their 
completeness. It was along these lines He established His Kingdom. 
He presented Himself before men as the Way, the Truth and the 
Life. He invited them to come to Him and take His yoke upon them 
and learn of Him, confident that every one that was of the truth 
would hear His voice. His joyful obedience to the will of God in 
the hardest circumstances was the demonstration that the service 
of God was perfect freedom; and He vindicated the sovereignty of 
truth and righteousness by carrying them through even to the 
Cross, the last sacrifice that evil could inflict, or loyalty to truth 
demand. His adversaries thought to silence Him by putting Him 
to death, only to find Him alive in their souls, still dominating them 
by His invincible love and perfect righteousness. They had still 
to reckon with Him. Only by surrender to Him could they find 
peace, and those who yielded, like Paul, confessed that the Cross, 
which had once seemed the very emblem of defeat, was in reality the 
power of God and the wisdom of God. 

III. The Teaching and Example of Jesus 

i. The Sermon on the Mount .—It is only in the light of the 
principles of Christ expressed in His life that we can interpret those 
sayings which seem to bear on war. The Sermon on the Mount 
was the statement of His own way of dealing with life. Its sharp¬ 
est and most provocative utterances, notably the passages Matt. 5: 
38-48, 6: 15, are simply the application to the elemental human 


THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


19 


problems of the spirit of redemptive love, the love that brings the 
Kingdom of God livingly to men, that it may bring them into the 
Kingdom. Revenge is thus obviously forbidden. It cannot serve 
the interests of the Kingdom, since it is self-regarding. Christians 
are to bear wrong patiently, for in so doing they witness to the 
Divine order of life. They are to love their enemies and pray for 
their persecutors, for that is God’s way, and to depart from it is to 
depart from fellowship with Him. Enemies are to be overcome by 
being turned into friends, and that change can be wrought only 
by love and mercy. God’s forgiveness of His children is condi¬ 
tional on their forgiveness of others. Yet this is no arbitrary 
arrangement. It arises from the fact that God’s forgiveness means 
the restoration to God’s fellowship, and from that fellowship a 
hard, unforgiving spirit by its very nature shuts them out. Men 
fight for material possessions, because these are the things on which 
they set supreme value. They can only be delivered from this 
illusion by seeing Christ’s followers treat material things as of 
secondary importance. Christians are to relieve poverty ungrudg¬ 
ingly; for love will not feast while others starve. They are to 
meet demands on their time and service with an alacrity that goes 
far beyond the legal requirements; for in the Kingdom service is 
the badge of nobility. 

We may rightly, then, plead the Sermon on the Mount as 
unreservedly prohibiting war. War cannot exist with the spirit of 
love and patience and forgiveness. To say that many of those who 
quote the Sermon on the Mount against war, themselves ignore its 
teaching in regard to the use of wealth, may be true, but it is scarcely 
a justification for ignoring that teaching in its entirety. The very 
knowledge that our interests and passions so easily blind us to the 
truth, and that we are only too willing to be convinced in their favor, 
should make us all the more suspicious of ourselves where interest 
and inclination coincide. What the practical man calls foolishness, 
may be the foolishness of God that ever proves wiser than men. 

2. The “Sword” passages .—There are two passages in the 
Gospels which are sometimes adduced as evidence that Christ sanc¬ 
tioned war. The first is Matt. 10: 34, “I came not to send peace on 


20 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


earth but a sword.” But our Lord is here, as the context shows, 
simply warning His followers that allegiance to Him will involve 
persecution, and may even mean the estrangement of their own 
kith and kin. The record of any foreign mission is the best com¬ 
mentary on these words. Too often the convert finds that his 
bitterest foes are those of his own household. 

The second of these sayings is found in Luke 22: 36, “He that 
hath none, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword.” But when the 
disciples produced two swords, Jesus’ comment was, “It is enough.” 
If He meant to advocate armed resistance, then two swords were a 
poor equipment for the whole company of disciples. But how far 
this was from His mind is shown by the fact that He rebuked Peter 
for using the sword, adding the warning, 3 “They that take the sword 
shall perish with the sword,” and pointing out that if He were 
minded to take that way, He could call the angel legions to His aid. 
The words are best understood as a warning to His disciples that a 
supreme test of their faith was approaching, and at the same time an 
indication that He knew their faith would fail, and that they would 
instinctively turn to the material securities in which the natural 
man puts his trust. 

3. The Cleansing of the Temple .—There is one case in which 
the action of Christ is regarded as carrying with it by implication 
the justification of war in a righteous cause. This is the incident of 
the cleansing of the Temple. 4 But it is thoroughly consistent with 
His redemptive method and purpose, and in no way violates His 
principle of care for the individual soul. Force is not unchristian 
if it is used in a spirit of love, and if its exercise is directly calculated 
to awaken the conscience of the wrongdoer. 5 Even if the whip of 
small cords was used for the men and not for the animals, it was 
not a destructive weapon like the rifle or the cannon. If it fell on 
the men, it fell on the actual culprits, and it left them alive, face to 
face with the demands of righteousness, and with the opportunity 
for repentance. But in war the real wrongdoers seldom suffer, 


3 cf. Matt. 26: 52, 53. 

4 Matt. 21: 12, 13; Mark n: 15; John 2: 13-15. 

6 See note at the end of the chapter. 



THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


21 


and even if those who fight in a bad cause may be regarded as incur¬ 
ring a measure of guilt, the bullet and the shell bring them no call to 
repentance and leave them no opportunity for making amends. 
What Jesus attacked was the sin and not the sinner; and the con¬ 
duct of those whom He expelled from the Temple shows that they 
realized His motive, for they made no attempt to resist Him as 
they could easily have done in virtue of their numbers. The only 
inference we can draw from this incident is that the Christian may 
rightly use force to restrain men from wrong and cruelty, provided 
that force be of such a nature and exercised in such a way as to reach 
the witness in the wrongdoer. But for guidance as to how he shall 
act in such circumstances the Christian must look to God at the 
moment when the problem is really his own. The grace of God 
is not promised for the idle problems of casuistry, but for the actual 
problems that come to the disciple as he meets life’s tasks and faces 
life’s discipline. 

4. Jesus and the Centurion .—In another instance a similar line 
of argument in defence of war is derived from Christ’s attitude to 
the centurion who came to Him with a request to heal his servant. 6 
Why, it is asked, did not He condemn the centurion, instead of 
praising him, if He disapproved of the soldier’s calling? But what 
He actually approved was the centurion’s faith and not his calling. 
And apart from that, it was never His way to attack outward con¬ 
ditions directly. His method was to create in men a new spirit that 
would inevitably react on their environment. To change the forms 
under which men lived without changing men’s spirit, would not 
make them better or happier than before. He did not attack slavery 
directly, though now we recognize it as a grievous wrong. But the 
spirit of brotherhood He awakened in men’s hearts, and the new 
sense He imparted of the infinite worth of the human soul, was 
inevitably the doom of all wrong relations between man and man. 

5. Did Jesus sanction punishment f —Again, it is pointed out 
that in several of the parables our Lord refers to the ordinary pains 
and penalties for crime, in a way that, it is assumed, implies their 
acceptance; e.g., in Luke 19: 27, the sentence of the lord against 


8 Matt. 8: 5-13- 



22 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


the unfaithful servants in the parable of the pounds is, “These mine 
enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring 
hither and slay them before me.” On this principle we might assume 
that Jesus sanctioned dishonesty in the parable of the unjust 
steward. 7 But when we take the context of the parable of the 
pounds, we find that it was meant to stir the conscience of men 
who thought of the coming of the Kingdom of God as an arrange¬ 
ment for promoting Jewish interests, and as bringing blessings in 
which men would share in virtue of being children of Abraham. 
He puts before them the truth that the coming of the Kingdom is 
a coming of a day of reckoning. They could not claim to have been 
faithful servants, and from the point of view of their own customs, 
what could unfaithful servants expect ? But it is fallacious to infer 
that because the normal penalties for crime are assumed they are 
therefore sanctioned. Christ asks us to be perfect as our Father 
in Heaven is perfect, and God’s penalties are never arbitrary, as 
human penalties are. They spring directly from the sin itself, and 
have their efifect in the soul of the sinner. The wages of sin is death, 
because life is found only in righteousness. God’s way of connecting 
sin and suffering is organic and necessary. But what nation ever 
regards defeat in war as a proof that it was in the wrong? They 
interpret it invariably as due to want of preparation, or inferiority 
in resources. The moral effect is nil. Even if they begin a crusade 
against their national vices, it is only as part of a physical discipline 
which is to make them better warriors and not better men. 

IV. The Apostolic Teaching 

Passing on to the Apostolic teaching, we find that it is wholly 
consistent with the Gospels. 

i. In Romans 12: 19-21 Paul repeats the appeal of the Sermon 
on the Mount in regard to the treatment of our enemies—“Avenge 
not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, 
Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord. 
But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink; 
for i n so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not 


7 Luke 16: 1-8. 



THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


23 


overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” This springs from 
his central doctrine that Christianity means moral and spiritual unity 
with Christ, as in Gal. 2: 20: “I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ 
liveth in me.” What Christ has been to us, we cannot but be to 
others, for the new nature He creates in us is His own nature. In 
being reconciled to God we are in that very fact committed to the 
ministry of reconciliation. Hence the Cross becomes for Paul his 
own life principle; through it he was crucified unto the world. 8 
It is pleaded on the other hand that Paul accepted the protection of 
soldiers, that he appealed to Caesar, and that in Rom. 13 he urges 
subjection to the powers that be as “ordained of God” as “ministers 
of God for good” and as “bearing the sword not in vain.” 9 It might 
fairly be urged that the apostle’s principles are normative rather than 
his attempt to carry them out, and that he was not exempt from 
errors of judgment any more than Peter in the circumcision con¬ 
troversy. But what were the actual circumstances ? The protection 
that Paul received from the soldiers was due to the fact that he was 
their prisoner, not that they were his armed bodyguard. He ap¬ 
pealed to Caesar to respect his own laws and set him free from 
unjust imprisonment. He recognized the Roman rule as beneficent, 
because it had on the whole good aims and a high standard of justice. 
His words were a warning to Christians not to make armed resistance 
to the State. In so far as its aims were right, Christians should 
gladly obey its laws and meet its demands. But this was not to set 
up the State as a court of appeal above the Christian conscience; for 
in that case Christianity would have abolished itself when the 
imperial edict went out against it. The State was not necessarily 
a minister of God, though it was so for the moment. A little later, 
when the fires of persecution were kindled, the Empire appeared to 
Christians as the Wanton, arrayed in purple and scarlet, and 
drunken with the blood of the saints. 10 

2. The Epistle of James gives us the classical analysis of the 
spirit of peace and the spirit of war. Peace is the fruit of the 
wisdom that is from above. War is the outcome of the passions 
that war in our members: greed, jealousy, and the misuse of material 

10 Rev. 17: 4, 6. 


8 Gal. 6: 14. 


9 cf. also I Peter 2: 13. 



24 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


possessions for selfish ends. 11 If then we follow the “kindly light” 
of the wisdom from above, we may reasonably expect it will not 
lead us into war, for that is not the goal to which it travels. 

3. In I Peter 2 Christ’s followers are urged to bear injury 
with patience. To suffer for doing right is acceptable to God. The 
Master Himself set the example of patience and “when he was 
reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered threatened not.” 

4. The Johannine Epistles repeat the doctrine prominent in the 
Pauline writings, that Christianity means a living spiritual unity 
with Christ. The writer insists that our relation to God determines 
necessarily our relation to one another. A man cannot love God and 
at the same time hate his brother. Hate itself is condemned as being 
murder in the germ. God is light and God is love, and to walk in 
light and love has for one of its results fellowship with others. 

5. Finally, in the Apocalypse, that passionate cry of a suffer¬ 
ing Church for God’s judgment on its persecutors, the central figure 
is the slain Lamb. Vengeance is left to God, and the power of the 
saints is in their patience and faith. To find in the vision of the 
Rider on the white horse, 12 with his blood-sprinkled garments, lead¬ 
ing the armies of heaven, a picture of Christ as ultimately taking 
vengeance on His foes in warlike fashion, is not only to misunder¬ 
stand the origin and meaning of apocalyptic writing, and to treat 
poetry as prose; it is to do violence to the actual description itself, 
for in it the sword is represented as proceeding out of the mouth 
of the Rider. Above all it is to assume a change in the nature of 
Jesus, which would take all meaning out of His earthly ministry, 
and make His meekness and patience a mere cloak which He wore 
till the time came when He could throw it off and appear in His 
true character. But we know “he cannot deny himself.” 

V. Some Practical Problems 

We have tried to show that pacifism is an integral part of the 
Christian ethic, from the fact that as Christians we are committed 
to seek t he Kingdom of God, and that the Kingdom can be served 

11 James 3: 17, 18; 4: 1-3. 12 R ev . 19: 12-15. 



THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


25 


only along the lines and in the Spirit of its Founder. It remains 
now to consider some practical problems which confront the Chris¬ 
tian in a warlike world. 

1. First there is the problem of self-defence. Offensive wars, 
it is admitted, are ruled out, but surely we might fight in self-de¬ 
fence. The answer is, that as Christians our vital interests are inac¬ 
cessible to assault from without. We are secure, in that our lives 
are “hid with Christ in God.” We can be harmed only by doing 
wrong, not by suffering it, and we can be betrayed only “by what is 
false within. ,, If we live, we live “unto the Lord,” and if we die, 
we die “unto the Lord.” Further, our sole concern is to win men 
for the Kingdom of God in the power of Christ’s Spirit. We have 
to represent the meaning of that Kingdom by our lives. But to 
defend ourselves with deadly weapons is to obscure our witness to 
the Divine Order, and to depart from our redemptive calling. We 
cannot redeem by slaying. 

2. Still more weighty is the question of defending the weak. 
There are many who feel that they could quietly submit to any 
personal wrong, but could not bear to see others suffer. The pacifist 
attitude seems to them the denial of a true and sacred instinct. But 
behind this plea there lies an assumption which cannot pass without 
challenge, viz., that if a nation offered no armed resistance to an 
invading army, the invaders would burn and slay without mercy. 
Is this assumption justifiable? It is notoriously hard to kill an 
unarmed man, and it would be still harder to kill those who had 
neither hate nor fear in their hearts, but only good will, because they 
had committed their cause to God. It is only when soldiers are 
maddened by resistance entailing heavy loss that the blood fury tends 
to break out. But if a nation enter on war, it invites the horrors of 
war; and it is unjust to reproach the pacifist with results which he 
had no share in bringing about, and which, along his line, would 
have been averted. All he could do then would be to put his own 
body between the sword and its helpless victim, but to kill the wrong¬ 
doer would be merely to add one evil to another. 

Yet to take the extreme case, that a ruthless enemy would slay 
even those who offered no resistance, and had neither hate nor fear 


26 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


of them—this is, after all, only the problem that the early martyrs 
had to face. They might well have fought since they knew that 
death was certain, and they could thus have sold their lives dearly. 
But they offered no resistance and the Church commended their 
submission, and speaks of the “noble army” who followed in the 
train of Christ. We ask then, was their action in not defending their 
homes mere folly, the outcome of misguided fanaticism; or were 
their peace and joy a brave show, feigned but not felt? From this 
dilemma there is no escape. Surely the true explanation of their 
acceptance of the martyr death, is that they were suffering according 
to the will of God, and knew that their sacrifice would be fruitful 
for the Kingdom of God. The blood of the martyrs was the seed of 
the Church. 

3. Lastly there is the problem of national claims. Has not a 
State the right to call on its citizens to take up arms at its bidding? 
Ought a Christian to accept its benefits if he will not render the 
service it demands ? But unless we are prepared to make the State 
a moral absolute, a kind of god, its claims must always be limited 
by the individual conscience. No State can long endure that denies 
this right, for in doing so it ceases to justify its own existence. The 
fact of living in a community and being provided with food and 
work will not keep men in contentment, if their spiritual nature is 
violated. Offences may come; for the Christian by the fact of his 
Christianity is a member of a Kingdom above all earthly kingdoms; 
his citizenship is in heaven, and it is from that realm that he must 
take his guidance. Yet if for Christ’s sake and the Gospel’s he has 
sorrowfully to refuse obedience to the State, he will do it in the 
assurance that he is thus really serving his country’s true interests; 
for the State, like the Home, is best served by bringing into it the 
spirit and values of the Kingdom of God. In that spirit he will do 
all in his power to bring the State into harmony with the Kingdom 
of God, and, if necessary, he will suffer hopefully, in the faith that 
the Cross is still the power of God and the wisdom of God, and that 
where Jesus Christ is lifted up men will be drawn to Him. 

Note. It is frequently supposed that a person who consents 


THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


27 


to the idea of police is necessarily committed logically to an approval 
of war. 

But this is not so. There are obviously large and profound 
differences between the way in which force is used by police and the 
way in which it is used in war. 

The force which is used in police work is 

1. Impersonal and delegated. It is not used by the policeman 
on his own behalf. He holds his right to use force in trust from 
and for the community. 

2. Regulated. It is used within prescribed limits. It is not 
customary for the police in many countries to carry fire-arms. 

3. Preventive. Force is used by the police not judicially or 
retributively. The policeman is there simply to safeguard order. 

In addition it should be remembered that the use of force by 
police is normally non-destructive; and the modern tendencies in 
penal reform would regard police action in dealing with offenders 
as simply a preliminary to a systematic effort to reform them. More¬ 
over the strength of the policeman does not rest upon his right to 
use force, but upon his character as a symbol of public authority 
which free persons instinctively respect. 

But in war 

1. Each party uses its force on its own behalf. Each nation 
is as it were its own policeman and is not the agent of a superior 
authority as the policeman is. 

2. Force is used without any limit. It is destructive in inten¬ 
tion and in fact. It destroys both men and things. Even limitations 
on the use of force agreed upon in peace time are continually and 
increasingly ignored in actual war. 

3. Each party makes a profession of being the agent of retri¬ 
butive justice upon its adversary. 

That is, in war and in the principle of war, each party is its 
own policeman, judge, and executioner. 

It does not follow that because one consents to the impersonal, 
delegated, regulated, preventive use of force by police, one must 
necessarily believe also in the anarchic, destructive, unregulated, and 


28 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


retributive use of force in war, just as it does not follow that because 
one consents to the limited use of a drug under the prescription of 
a physician, one is bound to endorse the unlimited consumption of 
drugs by everybody. The difference between ordered force and 
anarchic force is not a difference of degree but of kind. 


Suggestions for Thought and Discussion 

I. In what ways does the conception of war contained in the 
Messianic passages of the Old Testament differ from the conception 
contained in the Old Testament historical books and how do you 
explain the difference? 

When the modern Christian attempts to justify war from the 
Bible, how much of his argument is based on the Old Testament, 
and how far should that be conclusive ? 

II. and III. In fulfilling His own conception of His Messiah- 
ship how far did Christ definitely reject the methods of military 
force and earthly power which constituted part of the Messianic 
expectations of many Jews? To what extent does this establish a 
presumption upon us to seek the advance of His Kingdom in our 
day by other than military methods? 

In how far is the Christian acceptance of Jesus’ spirit of love 
and sacrifice inconsistent with engaging in war? How is Christ’s 
sacrifice to be differentiated from the soldiers’ sacrifice? 

What was the supreme purpose of Christ in His relationships 
with His adversaries and with all evil-doers? In the light of His 
love and regard for the personality of the evil-doer what is to be 
said of w r ar as a method of overcoming evil? 

How far are other relationships between men, and conditions 
of life in the present social order inconsistent with Christian love 
and regard for the personality of others ? 

What is the essential difference between Divine punishment and 
the old conception of human punishment, and what is involved in 
that difference? Consider recent changes in the methods of dealing 
with criminals. 

IV. How does the Apostolic teaching concerning the Christian 
way to overcome evil correspond with the teaching and example of 
Christ ? Give instances. 

V. What are we defending in self-defence? 


THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST WAR 


29 


Wherein lay the nobility of the “noble army of martyrs”? 

How far can the State “free a man from the ties of religious 
obligation” ? Can a follower of Christ engage in war without putting 
obedience to the State and to his commander above his loyalty to 
His Master? 

To what extent is the use of police force consistent with the 
spirit of Christ, and how does it differ from war? 


CHAPTER III 


CAN A CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM 
BE ESTABLISHED ? 1 

Richard Roberts 

The European War has raised a large crop of very difficult and 
bewildering questions, and of these not the least urgent are those 
which relate to the place and function of the Church among the 
nations. Some effort appears to be called for to reexamine the 
entire subject. The present confusion has arisen largely from our 
neglect to adjust our conceptions of the Church and its office to 
the conditions of the modern world. Churchmen have overmuch 
permitted things to drift, without seriously endeavoring to discover 
whether the traditional syntheses to which they clung could stand 
the strain of the situation produced by modern political and eco¬ 
nomic developments. The European crisis took us unawares, and 
we were consequently caught in the general catastrophe. The 
Christian Church, in a sense, went to bits with the rest of the world; 
it seemed to have no word to utter save that of blessing and encour¬ 
agement for the opposing combatants who went forth to war from 
the belligerent lands. Even the sentimental fiction of catholicity was 
shattered; and the opponents of Christianity were superficially justi¬ 
fied in affirming that the most hopeless ruin in all this ruined world 
of Europe was the Church. Another tragical failure was laid to its 
account. Where then had things gone wrong? And how may this 
perplexing tangle be unravelled? 

I. Why Has the National Bond Proved Stronger Than the 
Christian ? 

It would appear to be the first step in any examination of this 
situation that we should ask how it came to pass that the national 

1 The substance of this chapter appeared as an essay in The Constructive Quarterly for March, 
1916. We are grateful to the editor for permission to make this use of it. 

30 



CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM 


3 i 


bond should prove so much stronger than the Christian bond. The 
Roman Catholic Church and the Salvation Army, two really inter¬ 
national Christian societies, have been cleft in twain. Other 
international institutions have, it is true, suffered in the same way. 
Some allowance must be made for the fact that the Student Chris¬ 
tian Movement, the Young Men’s and Young Women’s Christian 
Associations, and possibly some other societies have succeeded to 
some extent in overcoming the tension created by a state of war. 
Nevertheless the broad fact remains that nationality has proved a 
stronger binding force than Christianity. What is still more dis¬ 
quieting is that the national principle has been able to evoke a 
devotion and a spirit of self-sacrifice that the Church has failed to 
win for the Kingdom of God. 

These circumstances can, of course, be explained; but no 
explanation can mitigate the real failure that they expose. Romain 
Rolland has reminded us that the kingdom of Art transcends all 
national frontiers. Its life and commerce are carried through on 
a plane on which racial and political boundaries become impertinent 
and meaningless. It is a kingdom, universal, catholic, indivisible; 
and he who owns allegiance to it submits to an authority more 
sacred and exacting than that of mere nationalism. This is essen¬ 
tially the claim that in theory the Christian society makes. It is 
a very ancient Christian affirmation that in Christ the distinction 
between Jew and Greek, Barbarian and Scythian vanishes; and it is 
this affirmation which is stultified by the events of today. 

To trace this failure to its historical origins would be a long 
task. We should not be able to stop until we reached the conversion 
of Constantine and its ill-fated sequel, the formal association of 
Christianity with a still intensely pagan temporal power. The 
“Donation” of Constantine is probably mythical, but he must be 
regarded as the main fountain head of the movement which led at 
last to the mediaeval doctrines of the “two societies.” The two 
societies, spiritual and temporal, consisted of the same people but 
had separate heads, the one the Pope, the other the Emperor. The 
theoretical ground of this development was the Roman conception 
of the State with its doctrine of centralized authority, and this 


32 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


conception became the practical basis of the ecclesiastical order as 
well. This was an arrangement to which Dante looked back long¬ 
ingly in days when the Papacy had become a temporal power. 
Rome, he says, 

Was wont to boast two suns, whose several beams 
Cast light on either way, the World’s and God’s. 

One since hath quenched the other; and the sword 
Is grafted on the crook: and so conformed, 

Each must perforce decline to worse. 

It is easy to see how, at the Reformation, the reaction from this 
position evoked the idea of the “national church.” The paradox 
of the Reformation was this,—that while the mediaeval conception 
of the Church broke down, the Roman doctrine of the State still 
prevailed in Western Europe. The consequence was that the State 
everywhere assumed the supreme authority and determined the form 
and largely the doctrine of the Church within its bounds. In effect, 
the Church became ancillary to the State, and in return was pro¬ 
tected by the power of the State. Nor has this national quality been 
restricted to the so-called “State Church.” In England, the Free 
Churches are also essentially national societies, and, curiously 
enough, have in general less sense of catholicity than the State 
Church. However it may be in theory, their working conception 
of the Church gives no appreciable room to any wider human bond 
than that of nationality. For the most part, they still regard mis¬ 
sions as to a great extent a work of supererogation. 

The Church unquestionably erred in giving too little respect 
to the idea of nationality. This was the result of conceiving the 
spiritual order in terms of Roman Imperialism. The result has 
been that nationality has turned and rent the Church. The present 
situation which makes nationality supreme is the inevitable recoil 
from one in which nationality went for nothing. It requires no 
profound historical sense to recognize that nationality counts for 
a great deal in the world; and it is the business of the Church to 
discover a doctrine of nationality which will not be inconsistent with 
its own catholicity. 


CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM 


33 


II. What Is Nationality? 

What then are the factors which create the sense of nationality ? 

i. Comparatively little has been written upon the psychology 
of nationality, and what there is is not of first rate importance. 2 
The principle plays a great part in history; but the historian is 
chiefly concerned with its external elements. Renan showed con¬ 
vincingly long ago in a short essay how little the conventional pre¬ 
suppositions concerning nationality have to do with it. It does not 
depend upon community of blood or speech, not on a common 
country or a common religion. This is not the place to recount his 
argument nor to add confirmatory data to it, though these have, on 
the side of anthropology, been much multiplied since his day. The 
natural history of the nation begins with the family. Then comes the 
tribe; and the nation grows through the expansion of the tribe 
(partly by natural increase, and partly by the voluntary or forced 
assimilation of other groups) up to a point determined by historical 
and political circumstances and geographical conditions. These ag¬ 
gregations which form nations may have come together in defence of 
some common interest,or as the result of conquest or dynastic unions. 
This, however, is but the beginning of things. The actual determi¬ 
nation of national character is the product of the common life of 
these gathered peoples. They live together under similar geograph¬ 
ical and climatic conditions, and tend to produce a common physical 
type,—though this is a slow process and takes a very long time to 
obliterate original racial idiosyncrasies. But other processes are 
set afoot which are speedier in their results. The community 
develops a common outlook, common aspirations which give a 
distinctive color to their art and music; they evolve a culture 
peculiarly their own. Moreover, they gradually find an increas¬ 
ingly powerful focus in an ordered State; and as the years go by, 
they build up a distinctive historical tradition gathering around 
the great figures and events of the past. There is no Englishman 

2 An article in the Sociological Review (London), for October, 1915, by R. D. Mclver is an 
exception. It is a searching scientific examination of the subject and affords for the first time a 
really stable basis for the discussion of the matter. The same may be said also of Dr. Chalmers 
Mitchell’s little volume on “Evolution and the War.” 



34 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


whose heart does not respond to the memory of Alfred the Great, 
Magna Charta, Drake and Trafalgar. Such as these are the factors 
in the formation of the national sense; and it will be observed, as 
Dr. Chalmers Mitchell, the well-known scientist, has recently pointed 
out, that all the factors of nationality that really count are human 
products. 3 

2. Moreover, it is clear that the principle of nationality has no 
fixity. A Welshman of twenty centuries ago would have counted 
himself one of the Silures or other of the four peoples who then 
inhabited the country. But a Welshman of 1700 would have deemed 
himself a member of the one Welsh nation which occupied the entire 
principality. The nationalism of Siluria had grown into the nation¬ 
alism of Gwalia. But today the Welshman is conscious of himself 
as a Briton as well; and his nationalism, while its center is still 
Wales, has grown to include the British Isles, and indeed all the 
Britains over the seas. The sentiment is the same throughout, but 
its object is continually expanding. What the Silure gave to his 
narrow little province, his descendant gives to the British Empire. 
And within this enormous political unity which is called (or rather 
miscalled) the British Empire, the same sentiment binds together 
men of different racial stocks and transcends their distinctions in 
a common loyalty. How true this is, certain recent events have 
shown. 

This tendency is not confined to the British people. It may be 
seen elsewhere; and it is probably a circumstance of extreme value 
that people springing from different racial stocks should be gathered 
together into the same political unity. The doctrine which would 
make racial and political frontiers coincide is fallacious and mis¬ 
chievous. Lord Acton was right in upholding that the supreme test 
and security of liberty lay in peoples of different race living together 
in the one political community. Nor is there any peril of such a 
grouping of different races working out in a flat uniformity. For 
one thing, nature will look after her own function of variation; and 
for another, under conditions of freedom each racial group in the 

3 “Evolution and the War,” p 91. “All the most important agencies producing the divergent 
modifications of the nations are human products and can be altered.” 



CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM 


35 


commonwealth is certain to realize its own peculiar genius without 
any loss of identity, and will contribute to the wealth of the whole. 
In any case, we observe that the historical tendency is to broaden 
the basis of national sentiment. We may perhaps conjecture that 
the nation represents a stage in the providential order by which a 
man is appointed to grow out of his individualism into a perfect 
catholicity of outlook and sympathy, from a clansman into a citizen 
of the world. 

3. We may add to these considerations the fact that national 
characters do not possess anything like an unchanging stability. 
They are modified by cross breeding, as we know; they are also 
subject to change as the result of national education and discipline. 
The diffusion of a particular set of ideas may cause far-reaching 
modifications in the temper and outlook of a people. Industrial 
and economic conditions very profoundly affect the spiritual and 
moral vigor of a nation. Nations may improve and wax strong; 
new circumstances may arise and the tide turn. Progress may give 
place to decadence. The soul of a nation is not a static and rigid 
affair, it is probably the most sensitive thing in the world. 

There is nothing then in the factors which produce the senti¬ 
ment of nationality to justify a conception of it as a fixed and 
unchanging phenomenon, wholly untractable and unmalleable. The 
principle of nationality is admittedly a permanent element in the 
life of the world; but the actual content of the sense of nationality, 
its extent and its direction, is open to modification. It does not 
spring from the soil, and is not therefore to be regarded as being 
among the ultimate and unchangeable things. There is no such 
thing as a permanent, fixed national identity; the ingredients of the 
national consciousness are in a state of constant flux. Hence the 
hope and possibility of its redemption. 

III. Can Nationality be Christianized? 

Nationalism has on the whole worked to the disadvantage of 
the world because it has misconceived itself. It has been said with 
truth that nationality is a good thing as long as it is an end to be 
struggled for; beyond that point it entails grave danger. Nation- 


3^ 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


alism may become the mother of jingoism. This is connected with 
the fact that the struggle for nationality is essentially self-regard¬ 
ing. The self-regard persists when the goal has been reached and 
urges the nation to seek other goals. This is well illustrated in the 
case of Italy. Italy fighting for unity and independence was an 
admirable figure, but it was this same Italy which a generation 
later embarked upon the shameful Tripolitan adventure. Self- 
interest becomes the dominant note, and it is as a matter of fact 
the regulative principle of the policies of all states. The first 
business of a nation (it is held) is to amass power and wealth, to 
make itself larger, stronger, and richer than other nations. It will 
occupy itself therefore principally in safeguarding its material 
interests, defending its frontiers, increasing its prestige, and enlarg¬ 
ing its territories whenever opportunity offers. Thus a nation only 
pursues its own interests at the expense of others. It comes to 
regard its neighbors as commercial and political rivals and as 
eventually possible predatory enemies. This is the ultimate root 
of all international conflicts, the spring of all jealousies and enmities 
and the prolific source of wars. It sets up a series of wrong and 
debasing values, identifying national honor with national amour 
propre, exalting patriotism above humanity, and relegating other 
national names to a category of more or less contemptible inferiority. 

But if the nations are thus governed by the principle of self- 
regard, how comes it to pass that this world is not a chronic cockpit ? 
There are long periods of order and seeming tranquillity in history. 
The answer is, partly that the tranquillity is indeed only seeming, and 
partly that the conflict of interests is still active in commerce and 
diplomacy. The moral sense of the race has advanced so far as to 
impose certain checks and limitations upon the self-regarding activ¬ 
ities of the nations, and these are embedded in international law, 
Hague conventions, and the like. But the present war proves that 
it is impossible to moralize the present system of international rela¬ 
tionships, and this is in the last analysis due to the fact that the 
current conception of nationality, because it is self-regarding, is 
consequently anti-social. Soon or late it breaks through the hedge 
of international agreements. 


CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM 


37 


Is there then an alternative? Is this self-regarding bias in 
nationality inherent and ineradicable? We have already seen that 
the sentiment of nationality is not a brute unalterable fact. It is 
a ductile and malleable thing. May we not regard it as amenable 
to redemption, and its self-regard converted into an ideal of human 
service ? It is surely not unreasonable to suppose that the Christian 
principle of personal conduct is applicable to the nation, and that 
the collective will of the nation may take a definitely Christian 
direction. This is virtually to suggest that a nation may deliberately 
and consciously come to conceive of itself as the trustee and min¬ 
ister of humanity. It is and always will be the business of a nation 
to till its soil and to conduct its commerce so that there may be 
a sufficiency for all its people. As things are, the nations seek not 
a sufficiency but a superfluity, and this superfluity is ordinarily very 
unevenly distributed. But in this alternative doctrine it is implied 
that the riches of a nation are in its moral and intellectual rather 
than in its material resources, that its life consisteth not in the multi¬ 
tude of its possessions, but in its ethical and spiritual contribution 
to the life of the world. Adam Smith’s doctrine has its spiritual 
as well as its economic applications. The history of the Jewish 
people is a parable for all peoples. Every nation is in a real sense 
“a chosen people,” and it has some distinctive gifts to bring to the 
total wealth of life. And that great prophetic vision of the Jewish 
nation as the suffering servant is the high water mark of specula¬ 
tion upon this subject. It is in the exercise of such a ministry and 
such a trusteeship that a nation finds itself. 

But is it not entirely fantastic to suppose that nations can ever 
be persuaded to act in this way? There are those who tell us that 
nations cannot from the nature of the case act unselfishly. That 
this is a perfectly gratuitous and unwarranted assumption needs no 
serious proof. There is no reason why, if any group of people can 
act from unselfish motives, a nation should not likewise be able so 
to act. The national nexus is not in its nature essentially different 
from the social nexus which binds any group of people together; 
and to deny that groups of people can act Christianly is to decline 
into the kind of pessimism which summarily hands the world over 


33 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


to the devil. It is true, as any observer of human phenomena knows, 
that a group of people may in certain circumstances act collectively 
on a plane morally lower than any individual in the group would 
by himself be likely to do. But this is only one-half of an important 
truth. Groups may no less act collectively on a plane and reach 
a height far higher than would be possible to the individual. The 
sense of solidarity may reinforce the timid and wavering motives 
of individuals and enable them to act together with a force and a 
consistency which would otherwise be beyond their power. The 
problem of christianizing a nation is not that of converting every 
individual in it. A. G. Hogg, in “Christ’s Message of the Kingdom,” 
draws an important distinction between the people who are the salt 
of the earth and the people who are only salted, the former being 
the definitely and consciously Christian, the latter those whose minds 
have been more or less saturated with Christian ideas. We may 
count upon a point being reached in the process of christianizing 
a nation when it will be at least “salted,” and it is not chimerical to 
suppose that its collective will may have a consistent Christian 
direction. It is indeed not impossible that the collective action of 
a Christian nation may be more consistent than the personal conduct 
of a Christian individual. 

IV. What Should the Church Say to These Things? 

What then should the Church say concerning nationality? 

It will assuredly first of all refuse to recognize nationality as 
being inherently and necessarily a divisive principle,—else it must 
surrender its own hope of ultimate catholicity. It will steadily 
regard it as a principle of cooperation and decline to see in it the 
ineradicable source of international rivalry. There is nothing in 
the psychology of national feeling which justifies us in believing it 
to have an incurable bias to a narrow self-regard, and it will be the 
business of the Church to redeem it and to divert it into the channel 
of goodwill and mutual service, declaring the while that this alone 
can enable the nations to achieve the best and fullest self-realization. 
Patriotism will be still accounted a great and noble virtue, but it will 
be the patriotism of Isaiah and not the patriotism of the chauvinist. 


CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM 


39 


But the Church will none the less affirm that nationality does not 
rank as an ultimate principle for the determination of conduct. To 
do so is to exalt what is partial and sectional above the universal. 
We have seen that historically nationality is in its actual content 
perpetually shifting and changing; and it is not to be classed among 
the primary principles of moral conduct—which never change. Its 
sanctions are no doubt high, but they are not supreme. The nation¬ 
alism which sides with “my country right or wrong” is a stark 
atheism. On this view a nation has no end higher than itself. Its 
own self-preservation and self-aggrandizement become its suprema 
lex. This is plainly the road to anarchy, the denial of all absolute 
and supranational moral sanctions. And even if it does not entail 
a denial of God, it certainly degrades God to the level of a tribal 
deity and brings us back to a crude and rudimentary state of human 
development. 

It is indeed not necessary that the Church should belittle 
nationality in order to set it in its own secondary place. That will 
follow if only the Church will recover the New Testament emphasis 
and give it its true position in its witness. And that is, that for the 
regulation of all human conduct whether individual or collective two 
points shall be always sovereign,—reverence for personality, and 
responsibility to God. Reverence for personality means that we 
respect in every man that which makes him a man,—not that which 
makes him a Briton, a German, or an American. The moral of the 
parable of the good Samaritan is that good neighborhood,—essen¬ 
tial humanity—is independent of community of race or of religion. 
It belongs to a region far deeper than those associations which bind 
us into classes and nations, to that one blood of which God has made 
all nations of men. Reverence for personality is the root of brother¬ 
hood. 

But the New Testament carries still farther. It not only exalts 
personality; but it reminds us of a unity of need and a community 
of redemption which binds mankind into one with a triple bond. It 
contemplates a human unity in Jesus Christ which reaches below 
distinction of race, of station, even of sex,—where Jew and Greek, 
bond and free are “one man.” This does not mean that the Jew 



40 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


ceases to be a Jew or the Greek a Greek, but that in their com¬ 
munity of origin, of need, and of redemption, they discover that 
they are brothers. Let but the Church insist on this, and problems 
of nationality will take their natural place. 

Not that they will be forgotten. On the contrary they will be 
studied in their true setting. We shall understand once more that 
God sets men down in nations, “determining the bounds of their 
habitations,” for His own purpose, which is “that they should seek 
God.” The nation is one of the Divine ordinances by which God 
designs men to find Him; and it is as they find Him that they find 
themselves. But they find Him where He is ever to be found,—in 
the paths of service, of goodwill, of faith. It is the office and the 
glory of the Church to lead the nations into these paths; and these 
are also the paths of peace. 

It has been said that the nineteenth century was the century 
of nationality. Despite the present conflagration, the twentieth 
century may yet well become the century of internationalism. The 
method of war is proving itself bankrupt and breaking down 
beneath its own weight. That is the judgment of many today who 
are competent to judge. By sheer force of circumstances, the 
nations will yearn to discover “the more excellent way.” Of that 
way, the Church is the Divinely appointed trustee. That its failure 
to teach it to the nations should have provoked this world catastro¬ 
phe is a circumstance in which it should find a call and a challenge 
to begin to teach it afresh with mor'e resolution and power than 
before. In teaching the nations to find their true life, it will discover 
its own; and in the brotherhood of nations, realize its own 
catholicity. 

Suggestions for Thought and Discussion 

I. What does “catholicity” mean when ascribed to the Church ? 

Can you suggest interests other than religion and art which are 
essentially “catholic” in character ? 

In what way is war destructive of catholicity? 

How would you distinguish between catholicity and interna¬ 
tionalism ? 


CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM 


4i 


Is a “national church” a contradiction in terms ? 

II. What are the factors which make a nation ? 

Consider the influence of (a) racial origins, (b) geography, (c) 
language, upon the constitution of American nationality. 

To what extent can “Americanism” be made consistent with 
Christianity ? 

Can you indicate any changes in national sentiment in American 
history which show the fluid character of such sentiment? What 
are the permanent elements in American national feeling? 

III. In what respects does a nation differ fundamentally from 
(a) a labor union, (b) a church, (c) a state? 

Is there any reason to suppose that groups of people are unable 
to act together in a Christian way? Is there a moral order for 
nations different from that for persons ? 

Can you give historical instances of cooperation between nations 
other than in warlike alliance? And of single nations acting unself¬ 
ishly—as for instance America’s return to China of the Boxer In¬ 
demnity ? 

IV. Where does nationality stand in the Christian scheme of 
things ? 

What should be the attitude of the Church toward nationality ? 


CHAPTER IV 


SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 

Norman M. Thomas 

The fundamental convictions which have inspired the preceding 
chapters have been: (i) that the Christian’s supreme loyalty is to 
Christ and His Kingdom; and (2) that war in itself is absolutely 
opposed to Christ’s way of love and His reverence for personality. 
Our conventional acceptance of war as a presumably necessary 
element of world life has blinded us to the fact that it is the com¬ 
plete and ultimate denial of a moral order and the sin which gathers 
up in itself all other sins. To talk, therefore, of a righteous war 
is to affirm that it is right to do the most monstrous evil that good 
may come, which is the supreme ethical heresy. 

Our advocacy of peace is not based on any ignoble doctrine 
of safety first or of quiescent acceptance of social and political 
injustice. Even war may be better than that. True peace will 
demand a courageous unselfishness passing that of war. The fol¬ 
lower of Christ cannot be obsessed with the idea of security of 
person or of property, nor can he believe that Christ’s revolutionary 
methods can be easily and painlessly applied to a world which nailed 
Him to the Cross. The way before us involves outward risk and 
inward struggle. Not alone in the forty days in the wilderness but 
repeatedly in His ministry our Master knew the bitterness of the 
temptation to fight for righteousness by the world’s way, instead 
of His Father’s. Shall we hope utterly to escape such wrestling 
of the spirit with the tremendous issues that arise from the attempt 
to apply the doctrine of love? In its application to the question 
of war it is certain that questions emerge the difficulties of which 
we must admit. Sometimes in trying to answer them we are obliged 
to admit two things: 

1. That we cannot see all the way, and that we are thrown back 

42 


SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 


43 


upon certain elemental and absolutely fundamental convictions of 
our faith, even our confidence in the love and wisdom of God, who 
will lead us to unimagined solutions of our problems if we but do 
His will. 

2. That some of the noblest men have engaged in war as a 
sacred duty at the sacrifice of all they held dear except their con¬ 
sciences. The terrible tragedy of war is not that in it all the powers 
of darkness are engaged, but that in it ideals of duty and of right 
lead men to slaughter their brethren in the great family of God. 

With this understanding let us begin to consider some very 
definite objections to what men call pacifism. It would, however, 
obviously be impossible within the limits of this brief paper to 
discuss fully the points that are raised. Our hope is that this little 
book may stimulate discussion and study; and we therefore profess 
to do no more than indicate the direction in which the answer to 
these questions may be found. 

i. “What would you do if you saw a criminal attacking a 
woman in the street? Unless you were a despicable coward you 
would forcibly interfere. Now sometimes nations are but criminals 
mad with lust and fury who trample upon the innocent. If you 
would protect one victim against the despoiler, are you not a thou¬ 
sand fold more bound to come to the aid of a nation of victims ?” 

There are several important points of difference between war 
and the protection of a woman attacked in the street. 

a. The case of the assaulted woman is a sudden emergency. 

V War never is. It is difficult to say whether the British Navy or 

the German Army was the readier for war in August, 1914. War 
between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente was regarded 
for years as a quite possible contingency; and it is well known that 
certain military and naval dispositions were arranged for a long 
time beforehand by England and France. 

b. In the latter case the use of force is unexpected and unpre¬ 
meditated. The average citizen does not spend regular periods of 
time in practising how to defend distressed women in the street. 
But war involves the use of premeditated, organized, drilled force. 


44 THE CONQUEST OF WAR 

It requires the deliberate training of bodies of men in the art of 
destruction. 

c. When I endeavor to protect the woman, I act as a free 
agent. I am still master of my own will, and judge of the moment 
and of the manner in which I must turn from moral to physical 
force. I can apply that degree of force which is necessary to 
restrain the criminal and to arrest his purpose. But when I go to 
war, I place my will in the hands of another; and I use force to 
the extent and in the manner which another person determines. I 
possess neither the right of personal judgment nor independence 
of action. 

d. My object in dealing with the criminal is to restrain him 
from the injury he proposes to inflict on the woman. My action 
is preventive. But in war, the primary purpose is to destroy the 
resources of the enemy, which means in the first instance killing 
men. 

e. In restraining a criminal I have entered into personal 
relations with him and may (and if I be a Christian must) build 
upon those relations a plan for his redemption. The act of restrain¬ 
ing his evil will has laid me under the obligation of trying to turn 
it into a good will; and I am still in a position to do so. But in 
war of the modern type personal relationships are reduced to a 
minimum. It is sheer mechanical, impersonal killing. A young 
officer who had spent three months on the Somme, and much of 
the time in a front-line trench, said that he had seen no Germans 
except dead ones and a few prisoners in all that time. 

f. There is no moral reality in the comparison of any nation 
to a criminal. Communities are and may be misled; but to charge 
a nation with a deliberate or unconscious criminal purpose is to 
betray a very dubious quality of moral insight. It is at once the 
tragedy and hope of the present struggle that the governing class 
in each country can get its soldiers to fight only by persuading them 
they are fighting against the oppressor, for righteousness. Not 
even the most ruthless military power has been able to drive its 
soldiers to the commission of atrocities save on at least the pre¬ 
text of hostile resistance on the part of the inhabitants of the 


SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 


45 


invaded country. If you are concerned for the protection of indi¬ 
vidual lives and homes, and of women and children, war has proved 
the most ghastly of failures. It invites what it seeks to avoid. 

2. “For a nation to disband its army and navy and to refuse 
to take part in war is to invite destruction not only for itself but to 
deny itself any power to serve righteousness. America, for example, 
if converted to pacifism would be powerless even to defend herself 
from the covetousness of her neighbors, much less to make effective 
protest in behalf of Armenia or of our South American neighbors.” 

Let Nietzsche himself give one answer: “The doctrine of the 
army as a means of self-defense must be abjured as completely 
as the lust of conquest. Perhaps, perhaps, a memorable day will 
come when a nation, renowned in wars and victories, distinguished 
by the highest development of military order and intelligence, and 
accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifice to those objects, will 
voluntarily exclaim, We will break our swords, and will destroy 
the whole military system, lock, stock and barrel. Making our¬ 
selves defenceless (after having been the most strongly defended) 
from a loftiness of sentiment—that is the means toward genuine 
peace, which must always rest upon a pacific disposition. . . . 

Better to perish than to hate and fear, and twice as far better to 
perish than to make oneself hated and feared—this must some day 
become the supreme maxim of every political community.” (The 
Wanderer and the Shadow, p. 284, from Vol. 2 of “Human, All- 
too-Human,”) 

These are words of soberness and truth. Foreign conquest 
may destroy a government. It cannot destroy a people—let Israel 
witness. But hate and fear can destroy the soul of a people. Better 
a thousand times run the risk of a possible conquest by Prussia 
than to seek protection by the certain Prussianizing of ourselves 
through militarism. There is no alchemy in Americanism to save 
us. What militarism has done to Germany and Russia and is doing 
to Great Britain, it would do to us. There are prices too big to pay 
for security from invasion, and when that security has proved itself 
as vain as war and preparation for war, why should not the nation 
turn to the protection that comes from the organizing of justice, 


46 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


from fair dealing with all nations, from the positive manifestation 
of good will ? The unique corporate experiment along this line was 
in the early history of the Quaker colony of Pennsylvania where 
for seventy years there was freedom from Indian wars. All the 
other colonies suffered. Pennsylvania was free until a majority 
of her people adopted the old way of force and fear. 

If we cannot really save ourselves by militarism neither can 
we save our neighbors. Even now it is fair to say that America 
through her missions has done more for the Armenians than Europe 
through her armaments; and this last and most terrible of Turkish 
crimes has not been prevented but made possible by war. Surely 
a civilized world by moral pressure, by the power of love, possibly 
as a last resort by application of what might be made a genuine 
police force, could deal infinitely more effectively with such sur¬ 
vivals of barbarism than could that mockery of a “concert” of 
armed and suspicious powers whose fruits we now see. 

3. “Justice is a higher ideal than peace.” 

Unquestionably; but what is justice? Justice is a rational and 
equitable adjustment of what are commonly called “rights”; and 
the only way to secure justice is by good will and deliberation. It 
can never be established by violence. 

And in the lesser affairs of life, where two parties are at vari¬ 
ance concerning their “rights,” it is the custom to refer the problem 
to the judgment of a third party who is disinterested and impartial. 

In war you have the arbitrament of passion and force; and 
there is not the slightest guarantee that victory will fall to the 
“righteous” party. It usually goes to the more efficient. 

Moreover, each party assumes the judgment seat; there is no 
impartial court of appeal. Justice is regarded to be the satisfaction 
of the claims which each party makes. There is no deliberate and 
sustained attempt to consider the case of the other side. 

Further, take the case of Belgium. What is justice when it 
is spoken of in such a case? Reparation? Restitution? Can any 
indemnity, however large, restore the lost lives or repair the moral 
and material havoc which war has inflicted upon that unhappy 
country? Will the reestablishment of its political independence 


SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 


47 


be even an approach to just and equitable restitution? Even if a 
slice of German territory were added to the Belgian Kingdom, 
would the claims of justice be then satisfied? 

Too often justice is regarded merely as the infliction of pun¬ 
ishment. But the infliction of punishment does not constitute a 
rational and equitable adjustment of rights. It is mere retribution, 
the satisfaction of the demands of abstract law; and so far from 
establishing justice, it merely sows the seed of further quarrels. 

And even when justice is thought of in terms of restitution, the 
restitution itself is expressed in material terms—territory or money 
demanded and exacted from the other side—and this leaves behind 
it bitterness and rancor, which proves that it is not justice in any 
real sense. 

We agree that justice is a higher ideal than peace; we go farther 
and say that justice is the real condition of peace. But we assert 
that true justice can never be established by war, but only by the 
progressive operation of persistent love as revealed and interpreted 
in the life, teachings, and death of Jesus Christ. 

4. “War is sometimes a blessing in disguise, nobler than peace. 
Peace often makes men selfish, materialistic, corrupt, lovers of their 
ease. War for a worthy cause develops courage, unselfishness, co¬ 
operation. See how France has been purged of her dross and in the 
furnace of war shines like pure gold.” 

Sometimes the statement is made more bluntly, “War makes 
for human progress.” 

To this last extreme statement one may cite the masterly 
answer of Lord Bryce in “War and Progress.” He concludes, “A 
study of history will show that we may, with an easy conscience, 
dismiss the theory of Treitsche—that war is a healthgiving tonic 
which Providence must be expected constantly to offer to the human 
race for its own good. . . . The future progress of mankind is to 
be sought, not through the strifes and hatreds of the nations, but 
rather by their friendly cooperation in the healing and enlightening 
works of peace and in the growth of a spirit of friendship and 
mutual confidence which may remove the causes of war.” 1 

1 The Atlantic Monthly , September, 1916. 



48 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


The milder statement deserves attention. It is true that what 
we have called peace has had her crimes, but it is because there was 
no real peace. Rather our armed truce has been characterized by 
the very spirit that makes for war, by cynical selfishness, by ruthless 
competitions, and industrial strife. Christ’s spirit requires of us 
not merely that we oppose war, but that we attempt the harder task 
of making peace real and worthy. It is also true that war does 
call out in many men some noble qualities—but at what a terrible 
price! The love of your countrymen is too often the measure of 
your common hate of the enemy; cooperation rests upon military 
obedience, the suppression of the initiative of free men, and the 
creation of automatic responses. British generals in this war for 
civilization and the rights of the weak have reported that the custom 
of tricing men on gun wheels was necessary for discipline. As for 
the purification brought about by war; remember only this—the 
testimony of observers with all armies concerning moral conditions 
and the breaking up of standards of purity and of the sanctity of 
the home is too horrible for printing. Even prohibition in Russia 
is dearly purchased by war, and in the measure that it rests upon 
military efficiency rather than public opinion it is insecure. There 
is material in daily life for the cultivation of unselfish heroism; in 
the reorganization of society on just and brotherly lines is the 
highest call for leadership, service, and cooperation. The new wars 
of peace will be far nobler than the old wars of bloodshed. 

5. “Belgium might have saved herself had she not resisted 
Germany, but what of the consequences to France? May not a 
similar circumstance arise for some other nation ? Should the Chris¬ 
tian citizen of such a country refuse to fight or desire his country to 
be disloyal to a neighbor ?” 

Nothing in this struggle is so clearly noble as Belgium’s choice 
of a destructive war for the sake of her duty to France; yet we 
believe that a whole nation inspired by the spirit of love could have 
found more effective and more Christ-like means to frustrate the 
invaders. What those means might have been we may not positively 
say. Suppose half of Belgium’s sons who were killed in battle had 
died instead as unarmed martyrs resisting German progress, but 


SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 


49 


not to the point of bloodshed—could even the Prussian host have 
advanced ? As for the individual Christian, however dearly he loves 
his country his chief loyalty is to the Kingdom of God. He does 
most service to humanity by absolute loyalty to principle. His 
country cannot keep his conscience and in the end she with all of 
mankind will bless him in that he made himself a living protest, not 
counting the cost, against the horror and futility of war. 

6 . “Human liberty is the result of successful wars for right¬ 
eousness. To denounce war is to condemn the world’s great heroes, 
a Joan of Arc, a Lincoln, whose lives have been the inspiration of 
mankind.” 

Before we come directly to this question let us point out with 
all possible emphasis that modern international wars do not repre¬ 
sent struggles for liberty, but are caused by economic strife and 
national pride. However blameworthy the Teutonic powers were 
for lighting the match, all nations must share the responsibility for 
leaving around the powder that caused the explosion. This war 
had its deepest roots in a false nationalism which cultivated the 
destructive passions of hate and fear; in secret class diplomacy; 
and above all in the activities of selfish and cynical financial interests 
in all nations backed up by their governments to exploit the weaker 
nations. Not one nation is free from the black record written in 
the stories of China, India, Egypt, Persia, Morocco, the Congo, and 
Mesopotamia. Books like Howe’s “Why War?” and Brailsford’s 
“War of Steel and Gold” deal authoritatively with policies which 
at once deny liberty and justice, and produce war. The great issue 
of freedom and justice to the downtrodden must rest on internation¬ 
alism, democracy, and the end of the dominance of an exploiting 
financial class. 

There is a second important preliminary consideration. The 
Church has already rejected as unchristian the use of violence in 
the class struggle. No matter how much less than a living wage 
our unskilled immigrant laborer has received, no matter how ruth¬ 
lessly he was exploited, he must not use violence. If he did, as in 
the strike at Lawrence, the Church rang with condemnation. Yet 
such struggles far more truly than nationalistic wars involve the 


50 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 

rights of the people. You cannot possibly lay down one rule for 
the class struggle and another for the international, or denounce 
armed strikers against undeniable evils while you bless armies. If 
the Church has been right in her attitude toward violence in labor 
disputes and in holding that there is a more excellent way to 
justice, she has been wrong in making herself the ally of the recruit¬ 
ing office in all nations. Why has she not had the courage to preach 
consistently that the bloodshed of war is not the way to justice, 
goodwill, brotherhood, and peace? 

Finally we come directly to the question. We are concerned 
not so much with what might have been in the past, but with what 
can be done now under present conditions; yet we challenge the 
assertion that because out of the welter of our wars some good has 
come, only so could that good have been attained. Man’s striving, 
under the guidance of a loving God, has not utterly come to naught; 
what idealism he has shown has brought its rich reward. But who 
can say how much further we might have gone had we dared to 
try boldly the way to which God summons us? Two examples of 
beneficial wars are often cited: the Civil War in England under 
Cromwell, and our own terrible struggle between the North and 
the South. Of the first it is certain that Cromwell’s Irish policy 
has left its sad legacy until today, and that the reaction from mili¬ 
tant Puritanism almost wiped out vital religion as a national force 
under the Stuarts. Of the second it is true that what moral fervor 
there was in the war was followed by the shameful period of recon¬ 
struction and the reaction which makes our history for the genera¬ 
tion following the close of the struggle the history of materialism 
and social indifference. Of both it is a fair question whether the 
moral earnestness of Cromwell and Lincoln and their supporters, 
had it been aroused to Christ’s attitude to war, could not have found 
other ways to strive for right. The failure of war as a genuine 
instrument of righteousness is proved by the existence today of the 
most monstrous, and most terrible struggle in history. 

We reverence heroes of mankind who served the ideal they 
thought was right even though they drew the sword. We rever¬ 
ence Joan of Arc and Lincoln in proportion as they departed from 


SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 


5i 


the purely military ideal and embodied in themselves a passionate 
self-sacrificing love. Even the pagan poet who sang “Dulce et 
decorum est pro patria mori” could not find it in him to sing 
the sweetness of killing for the fatherland; yet in the logic of war 
it is killing others that counts. But in the progress of mankind 
the blood of the martyrs—of Socrates, of Jesus, of Paul, of the 
victims of the Boxer revolt in China—has been in its influence out 
of all proportion to the blood of the soldiers. 

7. “Progress means gradual change from the less to the more 
perfect. In organized society compromise of some sort is inevitable. 
Why then make an exception and apply to war an absolute standard 
of condemnation ?” 

It is true that the very act of living makes us all more or less 
involuntary sharers in a wasteful, ill-adjusted, and unchristian social 
order based on competition rather than cooperation, which robs 
millions of toilers and denies them the right to the life more 
abundant while it pours luxury with lavish hands in the laps of 
others. It is our business to apply brotherhood as best we may in 
our own personal relations even under such a system, and to struggle 
unceasingly to change that system. We must take advantage of 
every possible opportunity to attain that end, despising no progress 
even though it be gradual if it is the best attainable. But in war 
we are not involuntary but voluntary partakers in an order which 
is the absolute denial of Christianity. To it I can refuse to be a 
party more successfully than in most other cases. For instance, the 
State may tax me for war or for other purposes of which I disap¬ 
prove. I ought to protest, but the State has power to take what it 
demands. The State has not power to make me kill others or 
renounce my conscience at the bidding of a recruiting officer. More¬ 
over, war not only includes all social evils, but it, and the militar¬ 
istic philosophy behind it, are essentially undemocratic. They rest 
upon an autocratic organization of society, and they are the chief 
buttresses of our unjust social order. When they go we may face 
the conquest of the rest of our social ills with new assurance. Here 
and now are the place and time to begin. Our gradual methods 
with war have brought us to this supreme waste, futility, and horror. 


52 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


Christians can stop war. If others will not do their part, I cannot 
make their refusal my excuse as long as I have power over my own 
mind and my own body. 

In this war against war more is of course necessary than a 
refusal to fight. We must struggle unceasingly to carry out the 
implications of love and brotherhood in political and economic life. 
We must neglect no useful machinery for the expression of inter¬ 
national justice and goodwill. In the organization of the Christian 
life it is upon these things that emphasis must be laid, and in them 
is a standing challenge to all our powers and all our faith. No mere 
refusal to fight will bring a worthy peace or the fellowship of the 
Kingdom of God. Yet in times like these, when men are deifying 
force and denying love, at least in acts, the test of our faith and 
our defiance to the trust in material things and violence, may well 
be our insistence that war and Christianity are incompatible. In 
fighting against war and against the growing spirit of militarism 
in our own land we are performing no negative task, nor are we 
fighting a defensive battle. If we find it hard to meet all the ques¬ 
tions that confront us, let us remember that they are as nothing in 
comparison to the staggering difficulties of. such questions as 
these: 

How can we believe in a Church universal or in the Kingdom 
of God and bear arms against our brother Christians in a national¬ 
istic dispute? 

How can we accept Christ as Lord and Master and deny His 
spirit by sharing responsibility for the unutterable horrors of war ? 
Shall we cast out Satan by Satan? We who have faced what is 
to us this supreme alternative of renouncing either war or our faith 
have found indescribable peace and joy in our choice. Not as 
judges of other men, but as brothers who have got a glimpse of 
light shining in horrible darkness, not as those who are strong, but 
as those who look to God for strength, not as those who have 
reached the desired haven, but as venturers who follow the star, do 
we dare to call for comrades who will fare forth for Christ. 


CONCLUSION 

What Practical Service Can We Render? 

First, in the highest and best sense of the word we must make 
ourselves students of the problem of the application of love to our 
suffering world. Often we act hastily because action is easier than 
thought. The average American especially loves organization and 
is a born “joiner.” It is necessary for us that we try to think our 
problems through and that we join no organization or movement 
without a thorough understanding of its purpose and an appraisal 
of it in the light of our beliefs. 

For example an organization may represent a notable advance 
in cultivating an international point of view and in calling our 
attention to the need of some sort of world organization and yet 
provoke criticism along such lines as these: 

1. There is not much hope of peace if it is to rest in fear of 
the overwhelming military force of the powers which may unite to 
preserve it. Fear never yet kept permanent peace. 

2. It is dangerous to lean upon any plan for a new and larger 
alliance of governments only. Our trust must be in some organiza¬ 
tion which will rest upon goodwill between peoples. 

3. Lasting peace demands no mere change in machinery, but 
consideration of fundamental problems of the reorganization of 
international affairs along lines of democratic control and freedom 
from the pernicious wiles of an exploiting financial class. 

4. No peace plan is valid which is directly associated with the 
attempt to introduce universal compulsory military training and 
service. Any peace movement coupled with the belief in the neces¬ 
sity of inoculating the democracy of America with the art and 
philosophy of war is a hollow mockery. All human experience 
shows that democracy and militarism are contradictory. Germany 
had the largest and best organized social democratic party, but when 
war came the voice of the drill sergeant was stronger than the voice 

53 


54 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


of reason, and the workingmen of Germany immediately went to 
war against their brethren. Never can militarism be conquered by 
the compulsory military training of the manhood of a nation. 

Second, we must begin in the humble circumstances of our 
daily lives to try to carry out the doctrine of love. More than we 
have realized, all of us have been denying brotherhood and justice 
to the weak in the very circumstance of living. It is our task to 
make them dominant in our business, in our social contacts, and 
in our political action. They call for life-long endeavor and fervent 
prayer to God for wisdom. 

Third, we can preach in season and out of season the over¬ 
mastering conviction that has come to us that war and Christianity 
are incompatible, and that the world must turn to the way of love. 
Not great addresses before public gatherings, but quiet, personal 
work will strengthen the ranks of those who are enlisted in this 
war against war. 

Fourth, we can cooperate with some form or other of the peace 
movement. We have here no adequate space to analyze that move¬ 
ment. It flows now in many streams which must unite in one great 
river of righteousness. It has its sources in the women’s move¬ 
ment, in the labor movement, in the growing sense of the economic 
futility of war and the consequent need of more rational interna¬ 
tional organization, and most of all in vital Christianity. 

It is well known that the labor movement in general, and par¬ 
ticularly the Socialist Party, are active in the cause of international¬ 
ism and peace. In spite of the failure of internationalism in this 
last war, a very large part of the hope of the future lies in the 
growing faith of workingmen in its necessity. The interest of the 
women’s movement in the cause of peace has found expression in 
America in the organization of the Women’s Peace Party, 70 Fifth 
Avenue, whose purpose is to “arouse the nations to respect the 
sacredness of human life and to bring about a condition of organ¬ 
ized living together among nations.” This Society has been active 
and useful, and it is anxious to get in touch with those in sympathy 
with its purposes. 

We are compelled to acknowledge with shame that organized 


CONCLUSION 


55 


Christianity has exerted nothing like the force for peace that it 
ought. Nevertheless there are connected with the churches certain 
peace societies which give promise of usefulness, and which are 
worthy of the Christian’s study and support. The most active of 
them at present is the World Alliance for Promoting International 
Friendship through the Churches, which may be addressed at 105 
East 22nd Street, New York City. The Federal Council of Churches 
of Christ in America, at the same address, has a Commission on 
Peace; and the Church Peace Union maintains offices at 70 Fifth 
Avenue. The Fellowship of Reconciliation is not an organization 
in the usual sense of the word, but into its fellowship it welcomes 
all those who seek a new world order by the sustained application 
of love as revealed in the life, teachings, and death of Christ, and 
who are unable to take part in the effort to conquer war by war, 
believing that in every relationship they must endeavor to practice 
that love as the transforming power of human life. It may be 
addressed at 125 East 27th Street, New York City. 

Finally a list may be given of a few of the more important 
general societies, together with the place where they may be 
addressed: 

American Peace Society, Colorado Building, Washington, 
D. C. The object of this Society is the promotion of international 
peace through the method of arbitration. 

American Union Against Militarism, Munsey Building, 
Washington, D. C. Purpose: To guard against militarism and to 
build toward world federation. This organization has been active 
in working against intervention in Mexico and in favor of democ¬ 
racy against conscription. 

World Court League, 120 Broadway, New York City. Seeks 
to secure the support of all people in the establishing of a world 
court as a rational alternative to war. 

League to Enforce Peace, 70 Fifth Avenue, New York City. 
“Proposes a league of nations to maintain peace by their united 
economic and military power, to be established at the close of the 
present war.” 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


56 

Collegiate Anti-Militarism League. “This is a spontaneous 
organization of American college men and women, who are unre¬ 
servedly opposed to the entire philosophy of force upon which are 
founded all systems of exploitation and militarism.” For informa¬ 
tion address E. Ralph Cheyney, Sub-Station 84, New York Post 
Office. 

Any of the above organizations would be glad to furnish litera¬ 
ture describing their aims and methods. The list is not a complete 
one, but it is meant to be typical of those societies which desire the 
cooperation of the general public as distinct from organizations 
like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the 
American Association for International Conciliation, which do not 
make any special appeal for popular support. 

These lines of activity are only meant to be suggestive. The 
hope for the future is that every believer in brotherhood will make 
his whole life a continual search for the realization and expression 
of the ideals of that Kingdom of God which is to be a democracy 
of brethren who live together in peace and goodwill. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The following is a brief list of noteworthy books dealing with 
different aspects of the questions which the war has made so insist¬ 
ent. The volume of essays first mentioned presents more particularly 
the point of view of these studies on social as well as international 
questions. These books can be ordered from Association Press, 
124 East 28th Street, New York City. 

Christ and Peace. Essays by various authors. Headley Bros. 
Paper, 35 cents. 

The Practice of Christianity. By the author of “Pro Christo et 
Ecclesia.” The Macmillan Co. $1.25. 

Newer Ideals of Peace. Jane Addams. Macmillan Co. 60 cents. 

New Wars for Old. John Haynes Holmes. Dodd, Mead and Co. 
$1.50. 

The Fight for Peace: An Aggressive Campaign for American 
Churches. Sidney L. Gulick, D.D. Fleming H. Revell Co. 
50 cents. 

Preparedness: The American versus the Military Programme. 
William I. Hull, Ph.D. Fleming H. Revell Co. $1.25. 

Why War? Frederick C. Howe. Charles Scribner’s Sons. $1.50. 


FELLOWSHIP PAPERS 

The essays in this series deal with some fundamental aspects of 
Christianity and its thorough-going application in social, industrial, 
national, and international affairs. They can be obtained from Asso¬ 
ciation Press at 10 cents per copy, 80 cents per dozen, or $5.00 per 
hundred. Orders for a dozen or more copies may include any 
assortment of Papers. 

Inquiries, suggestions, or criticisms relating to the views ex¬ 
pressed in any of the Papers will be appreciated by The Fellow¬ 
ship of Reconciliation. Its statement of principles and information 
concerning its work will be gladly furnished on request. Communi- 

57 


58 


THE CONQUEST OF WAR 


cations of this nature should be addressed to The Fellowship of 
Reconciliation, 125 East 27th Street, New York City. 

A More Excellent Way, by Rufus M. Jones, Litt.D. 

Personality and War, by W. Fearon Halliday, M.A. (Repub¬ 
lished from “Christ and Peace.”) 

The Seeds of War in the Social Order, by Rev. Willard L. 
Sperry. 

Social Reform Begins at Home, by David R. Porter. 

Can Prayer Accomplish Anything Apart from the Man Who 
Prays? by Edward I. Bosworth, D.D. 


The Conquest of War: Some Studies in the Search for a 
Christian World Order, by Norman M. Thomas, W. Fearon 
Halliday, F. W. Armstrong and Richard Roberts. 

Single copy, 25 cents; dozen, $2.50; 100, $17.50, carriage collect. 






r A ' . ‘ - ■ ' 


• ■ ; ■ %\ . N A.- r-‘; ■ '>. v .«•< ; 

r 

. -’i «•>:- 1/ V Ai ‘ ■- “ s-V i 

. 

- 

'/'■/%>?; « M' r ?rv'; ‘ y 

' '• v?. . kv ' ^ » &Cy ; . V \ ' > ,-v 

■ 

;V -• ' V ' '■ ■ ' 

v ; : y ]\^r K . ■ 

i'i.'V’ •• - •. • ' r;. /- . . -' o 

- • - , • . ' < - ' *: .y 

r “jL... » ■> v t - ■ f j “ .» v. . — 1 - v 


Hi -ill 


• ' ■ 4 Ca ✓ ■•jJ'vk ; c , r (• '' . |V- •'*{ , '■ ’ •'■ ’•* j- • VCvk'Jv; ’ .'^rs - 

' ‘ : . ' ' • „ > 

■ ' ! -‘H..-- - f< ' > ’^V • ' , . 

fite ■■ ‘ a, AAf. - ■ v■; ■ v: As v. a. - 


v/'f 


; / Ml . ... ■ 

• .• ' • A.'.,* ■■ ■ 

Vr 1 R' A-ki v : ■ . -. • - v ./ • 

' • A il* V *\ l A'' a fV y,' 

? \ ‘ i ’. ' .Y A J . vv '» ,r> _ ' Vt' ' L -JTw ji 

. 

' - ■ • il r> ; > 

* * ** a . 1 . .. » . ^ .>,1 ' ■ i. i > \ 1 tr —... i »'*4 ■ ... • .• 


> v . . . ' ' - '? • 

i i . , • . •••••' -v. • v ‘ . Vv . #•- .-• 

y . i. y >' -• ^v'. '.;*>,■• ■; ■' "• s 

tfr&’R*'-- ■ '(v&i-m:*: 

l ■ ■ I 


/V 


-v-l 


4 . -> ' 

\ r>>' 'L-- 


'':i 7 r#y 53 f /v 


. i'*. r n 


•' *«.. 4 >,I • v - '•* i -.--i B >'••• lit* ♦( li f" - • . H j. ft Af (•; 

at. V;. vL-t,- • Vvf : v; •'/--#' r. . ' ...•* a . A ^ yw-yt 


|r> ' 4 ■:■ M-JiSffik 

lAks&m' 


t. ’ - ■..•.■•■' \ ! . . . . • • •?. ..A*-'', ■ Ht r '■ 'HR. - '.. i)A* 

- i - ~ b - ■ - 

Q & 

~ 

. - • ■' '■ 

x ' T.- • ' -> " \ -■ * ' 1 ^ ' s • r .'t A.^, 

- ? T > V-V4 \ V- < - v,A- 

- • >< :\.z v ' '• - r a •- v -. .>• 




ws\ 


s. ' ■ A,.j 


fiT? 


-A- • k '.aYY-' 

; ■_. .' ■ t - p 




' r.. 


' • Sj ♦- ^/i " *v.~- ^ v\, ’ J i/'v’ rW * is/ ';<• /' 't.* i 

•y, »▼ V 7j\ », v w • A S' . 

sk r$m* "•■"■::."• y 

i/Rk. i 


RrP'\ 


. 




■sW, 


M' 


’< a / 




-;V 

• Si ~ ■ ■; A'. V. 3 . V 




<3v 


r'VX I .*'7 V.-. • v: <«-;•. -'■ - -. - -v'" v -.5 V ■. 

. y; . - -a -. 

v -Af -- ; ■. • - .-. • ... , 

-v ^ -s; ^ : VvVt ■ 'A;.- 

'-;x: >l ■?' V^... 

^ ’ - •xJ'JF AxJ / lA ! • ■* A *ir' . ,v ' v 

' ' ( ' 

■ A Ay ... -yr. ,> yA 

”* ~ •'vj'." •' • •' .4 I'iA ■- ■ -.'. j n . ; A ■ ■ .'■' 

. 

•/,y .: v -v < k' t y . A 4 

A- v • r • ./ '* , a .. . ■ ■ ■ -‘ v S"6 


•’ 'A 




iOii 


•fl*. a' . V ■'*■ 

■Chvct -i \ 


\ , . * 

\ 'vTTH.f« 


*'■/./- . " -A/'/ 


ky. A 


is 


m 


■ sSi 




7 V ^ 

' • v a *' r*> >vv. 

. 

'• 'Mi y'f 


' ■■■ 1 


\ X ' ^ 


JAk- 


■ ■■:<; j 1 

J* ‘ * 


; 4(5: 




i 


-30 ' ^ > 

•rvi 

1 \V, • - )<• v sv - *••- v 'Y;>yt/r» 

b v^ / .v ^.y " •. j ■ •; •. , ; .rA'i 

• , - - ... ■ • • . ' ' " ' >■' •.. - A 


,r- 


'/A? 

-K V j 


/ .-:y 




.“■vVf x. /fjttV-J 


. w .. 

>* 


F 


:Vi * 


*/** 


X A ‘ - 


*.'X --V 


y.. -• •• jr 








43 


y‘i— : r^ 


, > y x - -V-v .iyr'r -y . - ; ,y ;t>; t. - ... .. .. 

- . ■ y/'A' / • ■ 




-A </ 


Ca> V 

■■ - V ‘ \ •,•«•<• ' -L ;£ .if •'f 

..\'V‘ / v. -j Y ;h■ -•-f 
• x. r >7 i&v x-' -> 1 


v . . . r* 

' ■ ■ ■- •■: f .; ,, ’,!• ■ : : - 'V -*■ ' 


.0 .,- 


V*". 


r 


yj jfV 5?-x >-e 

V- \- 44 b * 


J «Vs> 


. 

' . > '"•> 




F; 


mm&Ri *:.v a/!';'' . • ,..a ■■ v •. 

« • ,■ • . ■ ' - 
y 

- ' '■ . '» . ■ • . . 


V .h 


t 

(- ■ * Vi 

Ty'-\ • 'is 


a V'v 


.ix^JX i 


..VTNfUfi n.-. V -H a 

v f ■ ■ yv,-, g >■: -*U\fev 

n ; ! ' sYaa . a , 

'• 5i' v " • '"■} - t‘4 ' ' 4 444 V 
xS.- * .. 1 A 1 ' 


A if 


- 

ly' .y/r-V . ; 


n '' cy 

->^x - j.- 


,'A :v..At v ,'V... vyyv.. V’- ;3 J : . ■:f,vA,A.''3.x,|A.v.yA; 

r . . ■ ■ ■ V: F - . 

r \ X' ■ ■'•■■• . W 

- h*. bxmfc 




■' -V r - .; 


> kv 


• 'X'/, 

'S'". 






. -.4■ . ' ■; r-r-m-. A" -> . l -- -■ 

■ 

# r.v} v -- ; ’: ** • v » • ^ ^ J > yA. ’ > -^. /-. *»'* -» ... . ^ i j*- . /.»- 

t./AM - ,!a"AvAvV V 4 

-;>:F -F k , 1 vAiyv , 

■ ■ ■ . 

■ -<-4. >: -':..AAy. : A i Av:,!,; 






.; • ' v-joti v."- * - -.-v - > 

■ y\. ..; , A"-.' ?•.' 'i {fra ' 

. ■ 

: .. -■ ». - • .y • . r/v , 
















library of congress 


it 
mk{ 

% 




0 005 809 909 0 « 

«''■■ ., ■■’ ••' ;*jrt v ; ir ' i ,V> -*v " ' * 

• ^ w j. S . *. f >; i .A, 6 A > • , ».£•• i v*< ^‘•Tj |» k a- / 

+' 1 "T-*- ■ -hV■ *• ,< n-j, r .r;•• .Ma ;■ fc .: x. i iv/ • *a 
iu«^ *>.!& ,■■' * ' 1 'Al- iIJ , f; J >- -jK - 5 -/ N 

V 


/* 


t <!'.■' K w.-f V'-f j \V + ff+fj * ; '•>*'/ 

■■ $ 4 ^p:u mjg% 4 >y‘'"i%2r- 
r % $ »■ ciP :! ? 4 $^P$Paw 

U-. 8$ *#&■M. a?ia]ris*y%- Jvi® 




4J|8§.:' ]s® ■•■'<# 4 $ : 
v ,:- 

- V ;.y ' '; , ; ';vVvv 


WvSb£ 




mwwmPm 

ft i$$ 1A-.;f'S 1/ ' y - 


JT- 


.. l-i&tii&r 

fwiWi 

*■ v ; :k 




ouv't ; ’ V '■''*&§% -^r.\U 1 \ •"■ ■[ "* .1; ' ''•»<, v '7 ’••*:.-S#? 

. < i *y > , •■/ m '•/>,*• \L't • i-> • *, ■• • •« ; :.■ • ,<*»* ..•» { /-i '*/'«?"•'■ ’ •'<) / < -iK ,.•'•• • i *> i f • *.,'■, • i ? ■ f ‘ 'i • \ ■ 1 J\ Vi • ; JMw , i > • • 

tV- r: V 'v ' " v. , : . ti'i. 4 ■■■'!:! 1 i/r V;: .’iti. X .■ . . , ■ >•' > ' J .. ,- f .' : 

■§ ".' ' mm ■ 

-■■'•■ ■ : ..t-fi ■ ■ -,. v - ■ ' 


r , ,v >’ c- 

■, - .. '.- 

rj J*-y > fc f'V 

|M -/*f R • 


VkIm'^k 

vv; v yi^rJX 
I', n 1 ' Vfl •>■ 

» i V» \ 

MktyM.w'l'J 


; if ;r':' 

it 




• t, 

• ■ ; '. . . 

'-*>7 • *•• ■. ■" tmi.'*-'* ■•'.■>■ ",\ \. •.; •'., t* i"T ;. : ' < '• • 1 „ ,' . 

:*;V -7' 

'■; ji?/. :^;.X- :;• -! %*«■ ■ r -{kWx* } MS'- Wk / ' v , 4^-30 

1 . ; ■* V-S : .i • i :>. JAr. 1 ■ • x 1 •'* ■' sCv i.T, •> i,/ >. t-*. /.-.a - ‘tbJL > 


mmm 

«mwM 

i • # 'A .* i / 


■ iilite apii 

f <-i, I m. i fan &, v ,.ff v ^ jKp ?• > w '4' w. f •< 


lit 


»iJr, 


r/' 




L *./. 




7t' 


V-'<-V ,'•■•• r '- f ■ ' feivu ir' V 

tew-.; 5 i|a 


-. • 1 . 






it .‘.4 -;■ 


/ili'jV M 

: -m. • v ,' 


it 


\tra ,'aV 

! by 


riijr ” - " 


I S JV 


: iy ,7 i^C f v t,''-. t .y 3 v ' 

O'f' 

> ,,: 1 . . . 

{hy*’ i ^• {' , V ?■>■%!' \ ‘^’5 •/vA’ - '. ’s-iv J.'*A 

w'vtibv* i^vfl r K-fZS* 

E# 


M 


■Wwl* p|i aI's 

4 :,> i 4 ii»feiffl 


. y\*r 


T \ rfrjSf 

ib» 


■V -4-i 


fe 


B? 





•'• biiiivv 


./K 




3*;H! 


ppip? 

' ' 

'A-pwfflTOs 

/! •*■ i< .< r\y i <i < 


k- W 

' L '- v vtr : ::;. 




i 






;^-v: 

pjp^ ■ •(i ^ ^ip | j 


~V »• v- ' • lO, 
^v»v »\* t,v;ail 

wm 










/y ■ 


























































